El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-02-10
MARION AND MOOD FILE ANSWER
IN DlSBARMENT CASE DENECHARGES

The law firm or Marion & Wood ~
lply TO hree principal disbarmen
charges as follows:
The first is that Marion q Woos
used Information 0btained while EN-
ployed by Petra q Garcia, as shown
1by en- advertisement which appeared
IN q Salt Lake City paper. and that
they further misFuaed Information oh
tanned while they were semployed al
attorneys for the estate Of Elias Ga
Icia.
The respondents deny these charg
es and give a statement relating t.
the chargess They say that on july
E25, 1910, Juan Antonio Garcia, Z
brother Of Elias Garcia deceased
came to their office and said: We
want your firm to help us settle the
estates They add that Garcia's
mother, Mrs. Petra G.. Garcia, had
agreed he should be c0,adminlstrator,
according to Garcia. III discussing the
fee. Garcia told the respondents, they
say, that there was q woman in Salt
Lake City who claimed to be the wife
OF the deceased Elias Garcia and that
there was talk Of a child born TO
them. This conversation brought ont
several questions concerning any
ceremonial marriage having occur
red: Garcia said he knew of none, it
is stated. The respondents go on to
SAY they met Mrs. Petra Garcia, who
spoke only Spanish, and Juan "A. Gar
ella acted as interpreter; a converse
ton ensued and Mrs. Petra Garcia
agreed to leave the settling up Of the
estate to Marion & Wood, according
to the Interpretation Of her converse
ton by her son, Juan "A. Garcia.
Later in the day, the respondents
declare Juan A. Garcia showed TEN
a postcard signed, MARY Garcia In
dicating that the writer of the card
desired a remittance and was ignor
ant Of Garcia's death.
The respondents declare that two or
three days later Juan A. Garcia came
into their office and informed Mr..
Wood that Mrs. Petra Garcia now
repudiated him fGarcia) and the firm
Of Marion & Wood entirely claim
ing she had never authorized Garcia
Or the firm to act for her; that she
had secured. other attorneys and had
applied to be appointed sole admins
trAtrix Of The estate, Juan "A. Garcia
admitted, the respondents say, that
the mother had not directly author
lied him to employ Marion & Wood,
but said he thought 1t would be all
right. the respondent, Mr.. Wood says
here. that Mr.. Marion was In New
York up to this time. After the row
With the mother, Juan Al. Garcia had
Marion & Wood represent him, it is
and Mrs. Garcia's attorneys
recognized Marion q Wood as attor-
for Juan A. Garcia, ii the settle
nent Of the dispute,
Why They Advertised
Paragraph 8 states that the rel
spondent, MI. Wood, knew there werel
'umors in Albuquerque on a Salt Lake
claimant to the Garcia estate and
Jaw no improperly in conveying to
he person asserting herself to be
5arcia,s wife the information that
ie was dead and that his mother had
laen appointed Administrative OF his
setate under a claim that he had left
10 wife o descendants living this
vas done so she, might protect any
light she had. Mr.. Wood seys he
hen asked Mr.. Marron whether he
EneN some lawyer in Salt Lake City
Who could ascertain the residence Of
his claimant and this led to the mem
ion Of Attorney George Gibson, fol-
owing in the writing OF a letter to
ar. Gibson and the insertion Of an
adj IN a Salt Lake City paper. The
Iad" brought a woman to Mr.. Glib
on's Office, and she said she was the
wife Of Garcia, deceased, She was in
ormed that Marion & Wood would
% glad to be associated with Mr.
dbsnn in looking after her Now Mex
90 interests.
The respondents discuss further
he matter Of representing this alleged
Fife and her infant daughter, Flor
nee Lillian, IN the litigation that en-
ued.
Taking up the charge that their act
ng as attorneys for the alleged VIE
nd daughter was grossly ~inconsist
mt and in violation OF, their prior
Employment by said Petra G. Garcia
s her attorneys Messrs. Marion and
Wood reply that at the time they ac~
epted employment as attorneys for
he infant daughter, Florence LILLIAN
larcia. It was their understanding
nd belief they did not and had never
coupled the relation Of attorney for
IRIS, Petra G. Garcia. They declare
hat Mrs. Petra G. Garcin did not be-
she had employed them, either I.
The answer concludes with q de-
ial Of the last charge, that Mr.. Mar
and Mr.. Wood violated their Off .
ial oaths as members Of the q. s.. !
court or had practiced mis- !
hief or deceit. (,