Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1915-07-16
JUDGE GREENE DENIES PETITION
estoration Of Edmund Condor, Former New London A.
tornsy othe Bar, Found Incompatible With Morality
Of the Profession and the Public Has Been Living
Straight in New York for Five Years and Many Bar
Members Favored Reinstatement EmbezzIed Money IN
1910 and Served Jail Sentnce.

On Thursday, Judge Gardiner Greene
filed with the clerk Of the superior
court his memorandum Of decision de-
nying the application OF Edmund Con-
don. formerly Of New London, for res
toration to the bar. In his nemoran-
dunn, which takes nearly four type
written pages, the Judge recounts the
action of the grievance COMMITTEES and
the disbnrling of Condor from the SUI
perior court of New London county II,
1911. following several breaches Of
good conduct. In 1909 he raised $500
on note. giving one Ducy of New
London guaranty signed by. himself
and what purported to be the signature
of his aunt, Mary e. Davis. Later he
was prosecuted on information charg-
ing him with forgery, but the case was
dropped, and his aunt paid the note.
He was later held on two counts. that
of stealing $500 on July Il, 1914, from
Bridget Ryan of New London, afld the
other, OF on May IL, 1910, receiving
from Bridget Ryan. $500 and appro-
priating $500 Of It To the second
count Condor pleaded guilty, was fined
$500, sentenced to four months in 1aif
and committed. It was shown that
Condor falsely represented. to Bridget
Ryan that Seiectman Charles Prentis
would take her money. Of which she
had $520.55 on deposit at the New Lon
don Savings bank. away from her to
pay e bill which the city had against
her husband, unless she turned the
money over to Condor.
The memorandum continues:
Mary e. Davis, Condon's aunt, Is q
school teacher, q single woman of adj
vanced years. and small means, and
she educated Condor at her own ex-
pense, and os1 one or two occasions be-
fore the offense above mentioned she
helped him out of pecuniary difficult
ties. She paid the Duey note as afore-
said. and also paid the amount EN-
beEzled by Condor. The greater part
OF his fine and costs was never paid,
but. after his term expired, ne was re-
leased from jail on giving his note for
the balance OF the fine and costs, about
$3.50. AS Is usual in such cases, no
attempt has been made to collect the
note. and 1t has never been paid.
To restore man who has been SO
publicly marked by both Imprisonment
and disbarment as unfit for the profess
sion would have q like effect ON the
public mind as to grant him an orig
inal admission. 1t would lower the
public's idea of the standard OF moral
ity maintained by the bar and required
by the court.
Another consideration is the effect
on the members of the bar themselves.
1t ought to be understood that there
are offenses which, if a lawyer COM
init them, must and will be followed
by a permanent termination Of his
membership. The one committed IN
this case seems to me of this kind.
The rules of court require every
applicant for admission to the bar TO
file afi1daYits of good moral character,
and every member of the bar I'm active
practice LIS advised that such affidavits
have been fled before the bar is called
on to approve the application Of the
applicant.
Il cannot believe that the bar of the
county would approve an original ap-
plication for admission by a person
having Coudon's record as to moral
character. To do SO would in my
opinion be improper. So far as the
public are concerned. 1t would be use
less to say. IL Condor were making
an original application, ct is true he
was an embezzler, but he has reform
ed" The admission Of such an aDplf-
cant would not whitewash the appli-
cant to the public eye; it would only
snirch the bar who approved his ad-
mission and the court which allowed