The copper era and Morenci leader., 1916-05-05
SEVERAL WITNESSES
 EXAMINED AT HEARING
Makers of Affidavits Swear They Did Not Know What the Affidavit Con tained When They Signed 1t
JUDGE O'GONNOR PRESIDED
Suit Was Brought In Name of State of Arizona But Was Prosecuted By o. T. Richey of Phoenix.

In the Superior Court on Monday last, Judge O'Connor, of Santa Cruz County, presiding, the disbarment pro- ceedings against B. B. Wall, for al- leged unprofessional conduct as an at torney-at-law, prior to the time he was elected to be County Attorney, came on for a hearing. Under our Statu- tes the title of the case was State or Arizona vs. E. B. Wall, but upon re- quest of Mr. Harben, Assistant Attor- ney General of the State, who was present, the names of O. T. Richey and Benton Dick were entered as at torneys for the plaintiff. The prosecu- tion was presented by MT. Richey and MT. Harben, representing the State. took no part in the proceedings. At the conclusion of the examination of witnesses the Court ordered the dis barment proceedings dismissed for lack of testimony to substantiate the alterations of the complaint and fur ther stated, that in his opinion, the proceedings should never have been instituted.
 During the course of the trial it was demonstrated that Everett Hagan had been active in securing the affidavits upon which the complaint had been brought and it is reported that he em- ployed Attorney Richey to prosecute Wall.
 The court room was we'll filled with spectators during the course of the hearing, a number of women also being prneset in the audience. Not ing their presence in the court room the Judge stated that inasmuch as there was no jury in the case they might occupy seats in the jury box, which invitation was accepted by twelve memb bers of the fair sex. After the ladies had taken seats in the jury box the court remarked: That is what the jury box will look like when we get to trying cases before the ladies'
 After the preliminaries of reading the complaint and answer in the case had been concluded, the first witness on behalf of the State, was Mrs. C. w. Bailey, (colored) who resides at Morenci and who testified that she engaged E. E. Wall to bring divorce proceedings for her in December, 1915.
 o. Was there any agreement come to between you and him as to whether or not he would act as your attorney?
 A. Yes, sir. He said he would take the case for $36. 80.
 o. What was that s36. 80 to pay for? A. It was to pay for my divorce
 O. Do you know what items that was to cover, or whether that was the amount he fixed andy ou paid him? A. He said he didn't know how much it would cost for the mileage from Tombstone to Huachuca.
 o. That was to be additional? A. Yes, sir.
 c. Do you know whether or not he filed that divorce action for you? A. Well, didn't know until l engaged a lawyer to see
 o. Of your own knowledge? A. Not Of my own knowledge.
 o. Did he ever repay you any of that money? A. Yes, sir; in Febru- ary, 1916, I told him my husband was dead: that | was notified from the American Consul in Cananea, Mexico that he was dead and died of typhus fever; I told him. He brought paper to Morenci saying il was $10.00 paid the court; it was marked over with pen or pencil $500 over it, which made it S15.00 that was paid.
 o. That is, $15 % paid to the court? A. Yes, sir; it was written with a typewriter and $5.00 marked over with a pencil or pen, I don't know which; I thought it was just luck that I got that back.
 Q. How much did he pay you back? A. $21.S0.
 Q. In other words, he took out $15 and paid you $21. 80?
 A. Yes, sir.
 MT. Richey: o. Calling the atten- tion of the witness to Exhibit D. at tached to the original complaint filed in this Court, purporting to be the affi- davit of Mrs. c. w. Bailey-did you ever see that before paper (hand ing paper to witness0 A. Yes, sir.
 Q. Is that (indicating) your sigma ture? A. Yes, sir.
 Q. That is your affidavit? A. Yes, sir.
 The Court: I notice from your affidavit here that it was subscribed and sworn to on the 18th day of May, 1915? A. Yes, sir.
 Q. And you say that in the year 1913 this divorce was to be procured for you here in this court? A Yes,