The Coconino sun., 1920-04-30
SEEK DISARMAMENT
 OF HEMPERLEY
(Coltinued from Page 1.)


 false and fraudulent misrepresenta- tiOn of the facts, procured from one Margaret Compton, then deputy clerk of the superior court, receipt for $750.00, consisting of two items, one of $350.00 and the other of $400.00; ! that the said Hemperley then and there represented to said Margaret Compton that one Charles H. Adams, then clerk of said court, was supposed to have given him receipt pursuant to minute entry in the case of the State of Arizona vs. Jose Diaz and | Alexandra Biceril; he, the said Hemp erley, stating that the $750.00 was paid through him; that $350.00 was paid by Victor Gomez and $400.00 by Claudio Garcia; and he then and there dictated the receipt as he want ed it made out, and the amounts he wanted inserted; that the said Hemp erley then and there we'll knew that l the said check of $750.00 for which the receipt was given did not contain items of $350.00 and $400.00 advanced by Gomez and Garcia, as aforesaid, respectively; and that said receipt was wholly false; and that he procured the same under false pretenses and through his misrepresentations of the facts, well knowing said representa- tions to be false;
 "V--That on the 22nd of May, 1917, the said Hemperley, in the trial of a certain case in the superior court, in which the state of Arizona was the plaintiff and Philip Mine was defend ant, during cross-examination of one lC. w. Penturff, witness for the state, was guilty of most disgusting, dishonorable, disgraceful, contempti. ble and unconscionable conduct, and used most vile and unspeakable lan- guage, as shown by the record in said cause, reference to which is hereby made, by reason of said language be- ing too revolting and loathsome for repetition; the said Hemperley dur l ing the cross examination of said wit ness, without regard to the rules of evidence or the ordinary rules of eth- ics of an attorney at the bar, appar- ently as a pretext for laying the foundation for the impeachment of said witness, by his questions to said witness, inferred that said witness was the worst type of moral pervert and degenerate, and notwithstanding said witness vigorously denied that he was guilty of the offenses inferred by the questions of said Hemperley, thes said Hemperley in his argument to the fury in said cause, accused said Pen turf of being such degenerate, with out word of testimony in support of said charge; ,
 "VI-That on or about the first day of November, 1917, jury session of the above entitled court, at which session Mark Boubien was accused of and stood trial for the crime of grand larceny, said Hemperley, representing the said defendant in said cause as his attorney, did wilfuly, unlawfuly and corruptly solicit, urge and try to | pur.suade one Fred Wolfe to attend said session and give false testimony in said cause to the effect that he had witnessed a certain alleged purchase of certain horses, alleged to have been stolen by said Boubien in said cause, from another person, after he, the said Hemperley well knew that said Fred Wolfe had not witnessed any such transaction"
 Paragraphs VII, VIII. and TX. are similar charges in connection with the case of Mark Boubien, alleging that Hemperley tried to induce John Allen, J. V. Fisher and Robert Kennedy to give false testimony.
 Paragraph X. recites: | "That on or about the third day of May, 1916, while one George w. M0g- nette was confined in the county jail at Flagstaff, he did consult with said Hemperley; that said Hemperley and said Mognette did then and there en- ter into a relationship as attorney and client, and said Mognette paid the said Hemperley the sum of $91.50 and said payment was so made before any ac- tion of replevy, which was afterwards instituted by said Hemperley against said Magnetic, was instituted, and be- fore the property hereinafter men, tioned as having been taken by said Hemperley was taken; that said Mog- nette has frequently, both before the said property was taken by said Hemperley and afterwards offered to pay the balance, $8.50, to Hemperley; Hemperley did not represent Mog- nette at the trial as he did so agree to do, nor assist him as an attorney in any capacity whatsoever, except in procuring bond; that by reason of the Hemperley's failure to represent Mog- nette, Mognette was compelled to em- ploy and pay another attorney, for performing the services Hemperley II f