Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-12-05

tho allegations OF misconduct on the
part OF the respondent I'm relation to
the Long and Sattcrthwaite cases be-
cause they are so remote in time that
any such misconduct could not justify
his disbarment II no other and later
misconduct is shown. This we think
Is not denied. but 1t Is insisted that
such misconduct, however remote,
should be considered because the pre-
sumption. from lapse OF time. Of sub
sequent professional integrity and
honorable practice Is rebutted by the
proof OF later delinquency. Such Is un-
Questionably the law. but the court
cannot disregard the fact that since the
respondents alleged misconduct in the
Long and Satterthwaite cases no pro-
ceedings have been taken by the bar,
or the court. looking to his disbai
although all the facts have been well
known for long time. On the con-
trary. he has been permitted to- act
as solicitor i'm the Court OF Chancery
without complaint or objection from
anyone. The natural conclusion is that
IL there was any professional miscon-
duct on the part Of the respondent In
these cases 1t was not In itself. such
rs to justify his disbarment
1T may be further said In relation
to the Sa;terthwaite case that the
court is not fully satisfied there was
any real intent 10 bribe., although the
proposal and promise might have been
so regarded by the attorney 10 whom
nA h.,
was improper ard entirely indefensi-
| bic. IL does not appear that the ad-
vice Mr.. Satterthwaite was solicit
ed TO give was clearly wrorE. There
was unseemly haste, perhaps Improper
motive, and the offer OF excessive
4 pay. TO secure such advice, but IL is
not certain that there was any crimi-
nal intent or such gross misconduct as
would warrant dlsbarment. IL may he
| also said II IL inconceivable To the
| court that any member OF this bar
| would attempt, or even have th'
| thought OF bribing an attorney OF tn,
professional standing Of Mr.. Satterth-
waite.
| We come now 10 a consideration ol
| the fespnfutNN 'ohuuNN i' wv ~
zlnski case. which is not only yer!
| recent. hut exceedingly serious.
The money in question, amounting
10 about ss5 was paid 10 the
respondent by his client. Dudzinski. e
bc applied 10 his clients debt. and M
failed TO SO apply IL. The responder
says the money was not 10 he pai'
| oF 70
ceived Il. This is contradicted by
number OF witnesses. as well as b,
the respondents subsequent acts, bu
assuming his statement to he true. i
is nevertheless a fact that he did no
nay over the money when the fou
months expired.
/ The pretended payment made wa
by two checks. not his own, but en-
dorsed by him. srd they were foun'
\ 10 be worthless. He says he helieve'
them 10 be good. but 1t is a signifcan
fact that he did rot attempt To max
actual payment until warrant ha,
been issued for his arrest on a charg
ot retaining the money he should hav
I applied to his clients debt. All IN
n circumstances surrounding tn
transaction strongly indicate that IN
respondent knew the checks were no
good. They were flled in by himsel
and signed by a person living 4
: Philadelphia. whom the responder
SAYS was a client. Tho check 70
s5o.5o was altered IN amount so tha
the two checks would aggregate SCI
the sum the respondent had receive
from Dudzlnskl 70 he paid 10 b!