The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1920-05-17
LEAGUE MAN FOR
DIS TRICT JUDGE
ONCE DISBARRED
Records Show That Martin c
Freerks of jamestown
Faced Serious Charge
IS MATTER OF RECORD

Martin C. Freerks of jamestown has
been selected by the NOnpartisan
league together with George w. Fos-
ter OF this city to oppose Judge w. l..
Nuessle of Bismarck and Judge COffey
OF Jamestown, Readers Of The Tri-
'bune are referred to Volume II and
page 12O, of the North Dakota supreme
court reports, where is recorded the
disbarment proceedings brought
against Freerks for fraud. Chief JUS
tice Wallin wrote the decision.
In 1901, Freerks acted as attorney
for one Mary Ann Jones in suit for
the removal of a cloud on title and
for the cancellation of certain taxes
illegally entered in the sum Of $66.3O.
To quote the syllabus:
"At the request of the accused
Charles E. Wolf, an attorney at law
lone of the informants in the action
against Freerks) as an act of courtesy
to the accused, gratuitously signed the
complaint and admitted service of the
defendants answer. and upon the
pleadings, obtained the signature of
the judge of the district to an order
for a judgment in the action. The or.
der in effect, directed the entry of a
judgment declaring said tax certificate
10 be void because the taxes were as
sessed on government land. and also
directed that the same should be can
celled as a cloud upon plaintiffs title.
This order was delivered to the ac-
cused by said Charles E. Wolfe with
the understanding on the part of Wolfe
that the accused would frame a judg-
ment under and pursuant to the order,
and cause the same to be entered by
the clerk of court. Subsequently the
accused drew up and presented to the
deputy clerk of the district court a
form of judgment in said action, which
judgment was entered by said deputy
clerk at the instance and on the re-
quest Of the accused, and the same
was entered in the absence and with
out the concurrence or knowledge of
said Charles E. Wolfe. The judgment,
as entered. granted relief to the plain
tiff as directed by the order for judg-
ment, but said judgment, by its terms
also purported to grant other and fur
ther relief, which relief was wholly
unwarranted by the order and which
could not have been lawfully granted
under the facts alleged in the COM
plaint Said extraneous relief, as en-
bodied in the judgment was couched
in the following terms: And the de-
fendant is entitled to have the amount
thereof, together with interest thereon
at the rate of per cent per annum
from the date of the tax sale described
in the complaint. refunded out of the
county treasury upon an order there
for from the county auditor Upon
the presentation of this judgment to
the county auditor that officer deliv-
cred to the accused who was then the
owner of the tax certificate, orders on
the county treasurer for an amount
aggregating the sum OF S66.30. Held,
that in procuring said judgment to be
entered by the deputy clerk of the dis
trict court. embracing the language
above quoted, the accused was guilty
of deceit and artifice. whereby the
court was misled and fraudulently in
duced to enter judgment which the
court did not desire to enter, and
which it had not directed to be en-
tered" n.
Fraud BY Attorney
Held, further. that fraudulent use
was made of said false and fraudulent
Judgment in the matter Of inducing the
auditor to deliver the said county or
ders to the accused.
Deceit by Attorney
Hold f,1rthpr that in Ommit I lNP
said fraudulent acts the accused was
guilty of deceit and unprofessional
conduct. within the meaning of sub
division of section 427 and of sec
CONTINUED on Page Eight