The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-10-11
MINING LAWYER N JUST.
ANSWER SUPREMECOURT
JOHN WOURMS ALLEGED TO
HAVE SERVED TWO CLIENTS
IN THE SAME CASE.

john II. NOuIlIiS, iDtui
must appear before the supreme court
OF the state on Friday. october IL,
and show cause why he should not be
disbarred from practice in the courts
of the state as the direct result of his
connection with the Burke VS.. Inter-
state Callahan case.
Wourms is charged by the court
with having represented Burke when
he was already in the employ of the
Interstate Callahan people.
The supreme court last July handed
down decision giving Burke posses
sion of the Amazon Manhattan group
against the Interstate Callahan peo-
pie.
II is charged by the court that
Wourms took advantage of Burke in
1912 when he was seeking to buy the
Amazon Manhattan group from Hor-
ace M. Davenport and others, the orig
iral owners
According to the court Wourms
Spokane in 1912 that he be allowed to
handle his case. Burke consented. AZ
terward, the court says, Wourms in
formed Burke that he was already
company and would have to drop his
case.
Says Wourms Got Property.
Burke had been holding an option
on the Amazon Manhattan group, The
court says the option was about to ex-
pire when he retained Wourms to
handle the case for him, and accord
ing to papers filed by the court, the
property for himself and afterward
attempted to transfer il to the Inter-
state-Callahan people. 1t further
charges that Wourms refused to repre-
sent Burke after the option had ex-
pired and title to the mines had pass
ed into his Hands.
Supreme Court Takes Hand.
The supreme court, in. unanimous
opinion, said
THE uncontradicted evidence shows
that Wourms prevailed upon appel
ant who was uneducated, never hav-
ing gone to school a day in his life
and signed his name for the first time
after he was 80 years old, and was,
because of his lack of skill and learn
ing greatly in need of the services Of
conscientious and competent attor-
ney, to not employ counsel other than
HIMSELF that during all, or almost all,
the time he was so employed he was
negotiating with the original owners
for the purchase, in his own name, Of
the mining claims upon which appel
ant had valid written contract or OPP
ton, which, by its terms, would expire
on December 8, 1912; that on Novem-
Der 23. 1912, he advised and procured
appellant to ISSUE a notice to the orig
inal owners granting them Is days
within which to conform to the agree
ments it was contended they had
made with him, well knowing that,
before the expiration Of that times the
written option would expire thus per-
hitting him to avail himself of the ne
gotlations he was making with the
owners for the purchase of the prop
erty by himself for the mining com
pany.
THAT in procuring this title, with
the mining company's money and for
its use and benefit, Wourms acted as
its agent and can not be doubted;
that he was directed by his principal
late in November or early in Deem
Der, 1912. to procure the title for it is
made manifest by the record, and that
while so doing, and acting within the
scope of his agency. he defrauded APP
pellant, nlled his mind into a sense of
confidence and repose and, to the end
that the fraud might be perpetrated.
caused him to permit his option to ex-
pire without seeking guidance of other.
counsel or otherwise protecting him
self is equally clear"