Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-01-23
HEARING 0'BR|EN
D|SBARMENT CASE
Commission Receives Testimony
After Denying a Motion BY
O'Brien for Continuance

n Rutland, Jan. ga hearing before
Roger w, Hurlburd of Hyde Park, w.
II, Fairchild of Fairfield and George
\ l.. Hunt of Montpelier, a commission
y representing the Vermont state Bar as
h ISOLATION, which was appointed by the
X Vermont Supreme Court to take testl-
II mony relative to disbarment proceed
X ings instituted by Attorney General ii.
u G. Barber of Brattleboro against At
\ torney Ernest II, O'Brien of this city.
|. was begun at the county court house
\ in this city to-day. When the commits
L sion, which has the same powers of
/ procedure as court, met at the APP
l. pointed hour this morning counsel for
Mr., O'Brien asked for a continuance
until afternoon to permit them to pre-
|. pare a motion which it was desired to
K file with view to eXpediting mat
Z ters, The extension of time was
granted.
L Warren r.. Austin of Burlington, who
Iads assisting the attorney general. ask =
: ed If Mr., O'Brien, who was not in the
+ room, should not be present at the
1 hearing and the commission informed
|! him that as the proceeding was not a
criminal one his attendance could not
Y be compelled. His counsel said that he
kcwould be there as occasion required.
L Attorney O'Brien made motion, in
substance, that as Mr.. O'Brien is un-
( der Indictment for serious criminal
charge, that of perjury which involves
l. personal liberty and is much more i'm
portant than the disbarment matter.
Z they should not be compelled to sub
NIT at this time evidence on which they
might rely III the trial of the criminal
case.
/ This afternoon Attorney Carver read a
, long statement, signed by Mr.. O'Brien
in which he said that his physical cond-
I ton would not permit the strain of a
I long defense; he pointed cut that a par
! tial defense might injure him in his trial
bon the criminal charge later; he called
tattention to the fact that one of his prin-
tcipal witnesses George i, Eastman) was
under Indictment for a serious offense
Rand did not wish to testify before his
hpwn trial.
There was motion by the defendant
)for continuance but 1t was not granted.
This left 1t to the State to go ahead and
1endeavor to prove the charges on which
iit was alleged that the rights of an at
ltorney at law should be taken from Mr.
fO'Brlen. The State has large number
sof witnesses covering testimony given al
Ia. previous hearing before Judge Frank
IL Fish Of NergenneS here and II is eX-
lpected that the case will occupy week {
)time in Rutland besides several days IN
New York. where it will be necessary tC
ihear other testimony.
( The hearing is going along on one
fparty basis.
Mr. OBrien was repre- sented to-day
lby j. Ward Carver of Barre, and NJ. G
fLeary Of Burlington. John w. Gordor
of Barre and j. c. Jones of this city
! who are attorneys for George r. East
! man of Rutland in perjury case
(which is a companion to that of Attor.
kney O'Brien, were present at the pro-
fceedings.
[ The disba rment matter grows out OF
kalleged misconduct of Mr.. O'Brien az
fan attorney in II county court mat
tier in which he had as client B. II
I Stiokney of this city, also II lawyer
Eand the Indictment in which 1t II
Echarged that Mr.. OBrien gave fals'
| testimony before Judge Fish in re
| gard to an alleged old document hav
ling an important bearing in a boun
ndary controversy between Eastman
and the Vermont Marble company
(which Mr.. O'Brien claimed he foun'
among papers belonging to the lat
fAttorney Joel C. Baker Of Rutland
predecessor Of O'1irien in OFFICES TN
latter now occupies.
Attorney-General Elect Frank {
Archibald of Manchester testified thi
afternoon, saying; "O'Brien told me h
gave the document to Eastman
tcounsel to get even with the Vernon
Marble Co. He was aggrieved at then
because they settled case out from
lunder him."
. Mr.. OErien has denied this.