The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-08-05
Reprimand For O'Brien
 Recommended In Reeds
 Report On Fraud Charges

lC. was not only in accordance with the direction of Judge Garvin but with the best standards of Federal and State practice.
 O'Brien Does Not Answer.
 The said O'Brien did not, in answer to the letter and affidavit, file any afhdavits to the contrary with the Dis trict Court, and made no motion or other effort for further hearing upon the subject of the receivership, and in due course on January 10, 1920. Judge Garvin filed decision denying the application for the appointment of a receiveer.
 With reference to the -Goodsell mortgage, said O'Brien charged that interest due on August IA, 1919, re- mained unpaid on December 29,1919, that the respondent O'Hara knew it was unpaid and had caused the Good sell letter to be filed in Court to de- ceive Judge Garvin; and further that the respondent O'Hara was not au- thorized to speak for MT. Goodsen in refernce to the appointment of re- ceiver for said Land Company.
 GoodseH Accepts Interest.
 As to the above charges, find that on November l or ?, 1919, MT. Good sell accepted as payment of said tn- terest due on August 14, 1919, sixty day note of said Land Company, Anderson, and was paid at its matur- ity January ?, 1920. I further md that the respondent O'Hara had been auth orized by MT. Goodsen to oppose the appointment of a receiver Tor said Land Company, and that said charges of O'Brien against the re- spondent O'Hara were and are true.
 Charges Fraud.
 The petitioner charged that the respondents fraudulently transferred to zalmon Goodseu a certain mort gage belonging to said Building Com pany in consideration for his signing the above mentioned letter, and that said Percy P Anderson had embez- zled said Mortgage The facts in this case are, that the Building Company held the note of one Hutchinson for S400, secured by mortgage, and that on January 2. 1920. this note ana mortgage were transferred to Zalmon Goodsel in partial payment of the note of the Land Company due on that date as above mentioned. the balance being paid in cash
 At the time of this transfer the Building Company was indebted 10 the Land Company by note in the sum of $4,600, and in return for its transfer of the Hutchinson note and mortgage Nnd its cash payment the Building Company, on the same date. received credit from the Land Com panay, by endorsement of said note the full face amount of said mort gage and the amount of the cash payment to MT Goodsell
 Transactions Were Correct.
 This was obviously a proper and ordinary business transaction by which the Building Company rece1v- ed full value. There was no element of fraud or embezzlement, and I find that the charges in respect thereto made by the petitioner agaInst these respondents and against said Percy P. Anderson were and are untrue. The respondent Marsh had nothing to do with any of said Goodsen transactions except to forward said letter.
 Charges Against Wolfe and Marsh
 Untrue.
 With respect to Mr woIfe's afR- davit said O'Brien charged that the statements therein were known to be untrue by MT. Wolfe, and the re- spondent Marsh. and that the latter conveyed the same to Judge Garv1n for the purpose of deceivfng him as to the debts due to the bank, and as to the intentions of the bank con cerning them; I find with respect to this matter that MT. Wolfe, from fir formation received from Percy P. Anderson and from his Knowledge of the two corporations through their business with the bank since 1917, and from his knowledge of the atti- tude of the directors and officers or the bank obtained in the usual course of its business. was wholly justified in making the affidavit in question, that the statements contained in said affidavit were in accordance with fact and that the charges of O'Brien against MT Wolfe and the respond ent Marsh were and are untrue.
 Cases Thrown Out. The two cases in this Court were later dismissed by this Court and up on appeal of said O'Brien the dis misSal was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cult.
 In the course of said appeal brief filed by said O'Brien was expunged by order of the Circuit Court of Ap- peals on account of highly improper and scanda1ous assertions made by him against Lashar and said Ander- sons, the respondents O'Hara and Marsh and certain Judges, which ap- 1 peared in the evidence before me but need not here be repeated.
 | At the hearings before me the peti- tioner and each of the respondents ap- peared and testified, the petitioner | cross examining the respondent and being afforded opportunities for hearing by witnesses and argument as fully as he desired.
 I find the allegations of the petition, as therein stated to be untrue, except paragraphs l, 2, and Is.
 I report as my conclusions the 1. I find that the facts are true | which are set forth in answers | of the respondents O'Hara and 1 Marsh to the petition or SdlO | O'Brien; that their acts in the 1 conduct of the litigation referred 1 to and in regard to the matters | complained of were in full &C., | cord with the best traditions of | the lar. the highest standard of l professional ethics and the :i- | uelity due to the court from | every practitioner.
 2. I find that the charges and allegations made by said O'Brfen 1 against the two respondents were without foundation and were made with a total lack of respor-
 sibility for his supporting oath. 8. Said charges, being abSo-- l lutely unwarranted and being 1 made without justification or l reason constitute a gross abuse
 of the process of this Court and l an affront to it's dignity, | RECOMME MENDATIONS.
 recommend to the Court: l q. That this Court adjudge
 and decree that this report Is accepted and that the facts are
 found to be as herein stated, aud | that the issues are found for tho
 respondents and that the petition | be dismissed, with costs and eN-