Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-08-08
JudSt Explains That He Did
Not Mean to Reflect on At
toneyS in Former Decision
ii Garcia Case,
SAYS PUBLIC GOT OFF
ON THE WRONG FOOT
If Any Suspicion Had Rested
ON Albuquerque Men Prompt
Action Would Have Followed
In DiSbarment Proceedings,
tssse..s alss.rea TO aosslns lsusaAu

santa Pc. Aug. Federal Judge
william H. Pope yesterday signed a
fundamental decree i'm the celebrated
case of Garcia vs.. Garcia, eXoneraung
the firm of Marion & Wood and both
members of the firm, from amy sus-
pici1n of Wrongdoing i'm connection
with the three letters introduced i'm
evidence i'm the Garcia ease which
were alleged to have been forged.
n viii be remembered that in the
original opinion handed down by
Judge Pope language was used which
was construed as reflection on the
ethical conduct of the Albuquerque
LAWYERS. In the supplemental opin-
ION rendered yesterday Judge Pope
corrects this impression and states
that If any such idea had been i'm his
mind he would have taken action to
have had the members of the Firm
disbarred The opinion is as follows
"In the original opinion i'm this
cause the court found that the three
letters exhibits 144-b. 14j and l46-h,
relied upon by plaintiff as a written
recognition by Garcia that she was his
child. was not written by Garcia but
were fabricated. To quote from the
opinion.
"Al three letters were, in view Of
the necessities of the case, written
long after the dates they bear, at
some one place, by the same instru-
ment. and with a view to providing
the necessary Acknowledgement OF
the paternity of the child.
"Messrs. O. ~ Marion and Fran
els u wood. members of the bar OF
this court and the ATTORNEYS OF rec
ord for the plaintiff in this cause,
have filed a motion winch, while not
asking change in this finding, re-
quests OF the court an adduoha
finding upon the question of whether
or not either of the attorneys con
nected with this cause were either
parties or priVies to such fabrlea-
ton of evidence, and whether or not
such letters were fabricated with the
knowledge. consent, connivance OF
other privity of either of said attor-
news I'm the cause The ground ol
the motion Is that the original opln-
ion rendered by the court has been
understood and Interpreted by many
of the public and members Of the
bar as mputing to the firm of Mar
ron a. Wood and to the indlylaual
members of said firm rosponslbililI
for such fabricated exhibits or that
they knew of and were n some man
ner pryy To such falsifving or fahri-
eating of the exhibits
"Of course Il is manifest that this
motion, even Il granted. can not ai-
feet the merits of the case since the
decree herein has long since become
final
1T is also clear that the course
which this matter has taken, at least
luterentl8lly if not explicitly, declares
what The pctitlOning attorneys ASK 10
he stated I'm SO many words Had there
been evidence before the court lusti-
Tying the belief that said attorneys
We're concerned in the fabrication OF
said exhibits, or had the finding above
quoted included any such conclusion
by the court, it would clearly nave
been the duty of the court to have CIT
ed the offending attorneys Tor dls-
barment-a duty from which 1t would
not have shrunk. The fact that 1t mas
not done SO should, TO the bar ana To
the public. be a sufficient lndlcalloh
That there was, i'm its opinion no
ground for doing SO.
AS however. the matter IN ques
ton concerns officers of this court
ana as i'm Difference to the future they
are entitled, if desired, to an eXplici
expression from the court upon thls
point the court makes the turther
finding to follow that portion OF the
opinion first above quoted;
THE court finds no evidence IN the
cause justifying the belief that q. y.
Marion and Francis r. Wood or
either Of them were either parties OF
privies to the fabrication of said ltl-
ters Indeed, the evidence tound III
the record upon this issue is To lhe
contrary
santa Fe New Mexico, this August
G, 1916"