Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1917-10-21
WOURMSDEN|ES
IN TOTO CHARGE
MADE BY BURKE
Wallace Attorney Says He
Never Received Fee or
Was Employed by Pioneer
Mining Man.
Cited to Appear in Supreme
Court to Show Cause WIZ
He Should Not Be Dis
barred From Practicing
Law in Idaho.

Flat denial was entered in the su-
preme court today by John H. Wourms,
the Wallace attorney cited by that
tribunal to show cause why he should
not be disbarred from practcing law
before the courts of Idaho for alleged
unprofessional conduct. to the charges
made by Patrick Burke, pioneer min
ing man of the Occur dAlenes, that he
acted as attorney for two opposite eli
ents in the litigation over the Amazon
Manhattan group of mines. The denial
is in toto. No date has as yet been set
for the hearing.
ALLEGATION IN SUBSTANCE.
The specific allegation against
wourms is that while attorney for the
Interstate Callahan Mining company,
which sought possession of certain val
liable mining claims known as the
Amazon Manhattan on which Patrick
Burke held an option and was seeking
to raise funds to hold so that the In
terstate- Callahan could not acquire
them, Wourns also became his attor-
ney and 40 manipulated the option that
the Interstate Callahan finally came
into possession of the property. Horace
NJ. Davenport was also interested in
the same property.
In his answer Wourms declares he is
not conversant as to what is disclosed
by the record in the case of Davenport
ct al, versus Burke. He denies that on
Nov. IS, 1912. he approached Burke at
Spokane and arranged to represent
him in any controversy between Burke
and the original owners of the Anna
Eested his employment or solicited it.
He further denies that he has been
guilty of gross or any professional
misconduct or any violation of oath of
duty as counselor at law" or accepted
= fee.
SAYS BURKE APPROACHED HIM.
Instead he alleges that in the fall of
1917 he met Burke on Riverside ave-
nue. where Burke hailed him and said
he was about to engage in litigation
with one c. w. Belts and had employed
Frank c. Robertson of Spokane as his
attorney He wanted Wourms to assist
Robertson in the litigation. This.
wourms, he declined to do because he
had been bitterly opposed to Robert
son in other litigation. Wourms told
Burke he would not put himself into
position OF butting into Robertson's
case"
HOW PAPER WAS DRAWN.
Belts was the agent for the ANA
son- Manhattan group and Burke al
legged had prevented him from turning
his bond on the property. He was also
Burke's secretary, but Burke claimed.
so wourms alleges in his answer, was
opening his mail to prevent him float
ing the property. He referred to cor
respondence Burke had with the
araesilli Chemical company, zinc
smelling concern.
Later Wourms said he again met
Burke in Wallace and Burke insisted
on him drawing up a notice to prevent
the disposal of the mining property to
the Interstate Callahan mining prop
erty, Belts being about to sell it to
that mining concern. Wourms said he
refused because he was attorney for
the Interstate Callahan and so in
formed Burke, but later in the day
came to his office and insisted. Speak
ing of himself and the action taken
at that time, Wourms says in his COM
plant, After some time this affiant
came to the conclusion that 1t was
probably easier to get rid of the said
Burke by preparing the notice than to
continue the argument any longer,
whereupon the said Burke dictated to
this affiant in sum and substance the
contents of the notice"
Wourms asks that the dsbarmcnt
proceedings be dismissed.
w