Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1916-02-06
D|SBARMENT Of
LAW FIRM WILL
Be CONTESTED
Answers filed in Federal Court
by 0, N, Marion and F, {.
Wood Ask Hearing Before
Another Judge,
ESPECIAL oispArep 70 MORNING. JOURNAL


Santa Fe, Feb. 5.--That @. n. Mar
ron and f. f. Wood, attorneys of Al
bnouerque, intend to fight every step
IN the disbarment proceedings insti-
rlted against them in the federal
court was plainly indicated today
when answers covering many type
written pages were filed in compliance
with an order issued by Judge w. II.
pope. January rs. giving them ten
DAYS to show cause why they should
not be disbarred.
The answers are individual, Mr..
Marion filing one. of five pages, and
Mr.. Wood another, of fifteen pages.
In Mr. Woods answer heeundertakes
TO explain all the proceedings growing
out of the case against the estate OF
the late f. G. Garcia, of Albuquerque.
in which the firm of Marion & Wood
represented an alleged heir of Garcia,
claiming the entire estate by descent.
With great attention to detail Mr.
Wood follows the so-called Garcia
ease from first TO last, explains how
the firm managed to be retained in
the litigation, and outlines the proceed
IRE following up to the time of YER
diet; and the INVESTIGATION conducted
bv Judge Pope following the verdict
Judge Prejudiccd Claim.
The principal allegation contained
in Mr. Woods affidavit is that Judge
w. II. Pope. before whom the Garcia
case was tried. and who wrote an
opinion at the time he set aside the
verdict rendered in favor Of Marion
& Woods client, has a personal bias
and prejudice against him, Wood, and
declares Judge Pope to be disqualified
TO determine the issues in the disbar-
ment proceedings. Mr. Woods ale
cations Of bias and prejudice are sum-
med up in the following paragraph
taken from the affidavit:
Francis f. Wood, being duly
sworn, says he is one of the respond
ents in the above entitled cause: that
it is the belief of this respondent that
Hon. William II. Pope, district Judge
of the United States for the district
of New Mexico has a personal bias
and prejudice against this respondent
concerning the matters charged
against this respondent and under
investigation in this proceeding, and
this respondent therefore charges,
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 81
Of the judicial code of the United
States that the said William II. Pope,
district judge as aforesaid, has per-
sonal bias and prejudice against this
respondent which disqualifies the said
William H''ePoa9e to sit in or determ-
inc the issues in this proceeding pur-
suant to the terms and provisions of
the said section"
Wrong Impression Claimed.
Taking up in his answer the matter
of the alleged fabrication of evidence.
Mr. Wood goes at length into an ex-
PLANTATION of the various letters in
troduced i'm evidence, and traces, as
far as possible their source and their
custody prior to and during the trial
of the principal action In this con-
nection, Mr.. Wood declares that in
failing to adequately consider and
comment upon certain evidence in
troduced by them, through Mr.. Glib
son. an attorney of Salt Lake, relative
to the letters in question Judge Pope
created in the public mind an errone-
Gus impression. Regarding this phase
of the matter, Mr.. Wood says in his
answer
Judge Pope in his opinion omitted
all reference to the explanation of