Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1913-05-14
TAKEN FROM THE WATER TOWER
THE STATUS or THE MATTER
Situation of the District Attorney Of
flee Mix-up

The matter of the supreme court de-
cision declaring ineligible for admission
10 the bar District Attorney Geo. W.
Mckibbin, leaves things rather vague
and subject to misunderstanding by the
public. The attorney general has pro-
vided Governor McGogern an official
opinion regarding the mx-up, in which
it is stated that MIR. McKibbin is per-
mitted to hold the Office until the rec
ords in the supreme court have been
remanded to the lower court and the
record entered. Thirty days after the
decision of the supreme court must
elapse before the record can be return
ed to lower court, and if motion for a
rehearing is made the record must be
held longer time. A vacancy will be
held to have occurred in the office when
he circuit court revokes McKibbin's
license, and it will be the duty of the
the vacancy. In the mean time should
Mr.. McKibbin be able 10 pass the state
bar examination he would become eli
gible to retain the Office. THESE are
substantially the cenesasions of the at
torney general.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Following is the gist of the court
findings in declaring the ineligibility of
DIR. mckib5in and reversal of Judge
Higbee's action:
The legislature having reasonably provided by
the written law. that all persons who shall have
been admitted 10 practice in the supreme court of
any other state territory. and who shall be
ldents of this state may be admitted to practice
here upon satisfactory proof Of their having been
engaged in the actual practice in such another
state or territory for period of at least two
prior to the application for admission to courts OF
record in this state it cannot be departed from in
Judicial discretion. AS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE, in
refusing to recall the mistake made in the first
instance. The only way that can satisfy that
standard of admission Is 20 come up to it.
II follows that the learned circuit court commit
ted error in treating a vital requisite of admission
to the bar as a mere techuicality. Instead Of the
subject CMcKibbn) having practieed his profess
sion two years IN the state where he was admit
.tei to practice by its highest court, stature
requires, he had not practced there at all. II
be that the two years practice in the neighborinR
state might mean as much, m fact, but u Is not
given to the courts TO thus deal with plein s.au-
tory regulation.
Therefore the trial court committed jursdic-
tional error In admitting respondent. The compe-
tency of the court was limited by the proofs pre-
scented respecting whether the applicant for adj
mission satisfied the statutory conditions. 1t
gran ted the license in the face of plain case Of
want thereof. Such an excess Of authority may
be recalled at any time. Doubtless the particular
excess was not intentional ANY member of the
pdfs ana esperialiy the par acting coiieettNoly,
has the right 10 request the court to recall such
an lnadvertent act and expunEe from the roll Of
attorneys the name Illegally placed there.
The result is unfortunate to the respondent
but the law cannot be changed TO satisfy the neo-
essities of particular case Doubtless be pres
ented his application Tor admission in good faiCh
ana II was inadvertently granted the tria, court
overlooking the want Of essentials at the time or
not approaching that it had no power todisregard
them. No moral turpitude attaches to the re-
spondent.. He can probably regain his position
through the abundant facilities afforded by the
written law. II is far better that he should be
put 70 that Inconvenience than that a dangerous
precedent should be made