The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-07
DISBARS PARTRIDGE
FOR TRUCKING THAW
Appellate Division Finds Law.
yer Kept Thousands Given
for Defence.
CALLS HIS ACTS CRIMINAL
Says Mrs. Thaw's Money Was
Squandered--BraAds Hart
ridge as "SOrdid."
CALLS HIS ACTS CRIMINAL

Clifford ". Hartridge. who was attor-
ney for Harry X. Thaw on his nrst trial
for the killing OF Stanford white and
who was charged by Thaw with making
improper expenditures OF the money en-
trusted to him for the defence. was dts
barred yesterday by the Appellate Divi-
sion OF the Supreme Court. Presiding
Justice Insraham. who wrote the opinion.
said:
TT In perfectly clear that this respond
cnt has been guilty OF unprofessional con-
duct and that he In utterly unworthy to
remain q member of an honorable pro-
fession. and liz therefore disbarred.'
on a previous occasion similar proceed
ings against Hartridge were dismissed.
The court said In the opinion yesterday
that II had become known to Hartridge
that Thaw had lived a absolute life in
New York and had been an associate OF
women OF low character The first charge
against the lawyer was that he had paid
iurge sums to "a number OF these women
TO keep them from giving information TO
the District Attorney.
Violated Law. says Court.
The court sa d that Hartridge got more
than 800, 900 from Thaw and his mother
TO be used in the defence. and after the
acQuittal of Thew he sued Mrs. Thaw for
10000 in addition to the amount he had
received. Upon that trial in the Federal
Court Hartridse claimed to have paid
more than $4,000 to these women and
persons connected with them to prevent
the District Attorney from securing their
testimony. The court held that his acts
In this RESPECT we're in violation OF the
penal law.
The referee who heard the charges
against Hartridge reported that the law
yer had used money advanced by Mrs
1'haw in gambling houses and otherwise
appropriated II = his own use, and that
the bills Of particulars he gave in the
Federal court as to the purposes for
which he expended large sums were false :
that when he claimed ne was paying
money In New York city for Thaw h.
was at southampton. l.. l.. and that his
whole testimony was ''evasive, indefinite
and contradictory"
Balance Of $4,000 In Disput~.
The referee found that OF the slO3, 900
Hartridge actually received ne spent s3s.-
600 for matters not criticised, and OF the
remaining $4,000 the sum of s33. 900 was
credited Oh account of fees. leaving
balance OF $4,000 in dispute
In sustaining the findings OF the
referee the Appellate Division said: 1T
Is quite useless to describe the respond
ents disgraceful and shameless conduct
In relation TO his alleged defence OF
Thaw. II press rts a soi did. vulgar con-
dition by which many thousands OF dol
lars Of this woman's tMrs. Thaw's)
money were sauandered in an absolutely
useless and unprofessional way. But. Sd
far AS they tended to suppress evid anc..
We agree with the referee that they
wer. in violation OF the penal law. and II
the payments were actually made. as
claimed by the respondent. they certainly
constituted transportation of his
clients money and conduct which violated
his professional obligations. The whole
story Is disgraceful and dishonorable ami
one for which there is no possible justin
cation"