Case Name: In the Matter of the Disbarment of BARCLAY McCOWAN
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1917-05-03
Citations: 175 Cal. 51
Docket Number: Crim. No. 1988
Parties: In the Matter of the Disbarment of BARCLAY McCOWAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 1988.
In Bank.
May 3, 1917.]
In the Matter of the Disbarment of BARCLAY McCOWAN.
Disbarment of Attorney—Transfer of Proceeding to Supreme Court from District Court of Appeal.—The supreme court has power to transfer to itself for hearing and determination a proceeding for the disbarment of an attorney at law which had been heard and decided by the district court of appeal.
PROCEEDING for the disbarment of an attorney at law, transferred to the Supreme Court after hearing and determination by the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John S. Partridge, C. V. Anderson, C. L. Claflin, George E. Whitaker, F. E. Borton, and C. E. Arnold, a Committee for the Kern County Bar Association, for Petitioner.
Francis J. Heney, Marshall Stimson, Barclay McCowan, in pro. per., and Alfred Siemon, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This matter was first presented to this court for its hearing and determination. By this court it was transferred to the court of appeal of the second appellate district. There it was heard and decided. Thereafter application was made that the matter be transferred to this court for hearing and determination, which application was granted. At the time set for hearing respondent interposed a preliminary objection to this court proceeding with the hearing, based on the contention that it was without jurisdiction so to do. The matter was submitted upon briefs of the respective parties to be filed. While the matter was thus pending this court had occasion to consider and determine it In the Matter of the Admission of Alonzo Wells to Practice Law, 174 Cal. 467, [163 Pac. 657]. The detailed and exhaustive treatment there given to the question relieves from the necessity of doing more than making a reference to that decision. For the reasons therein expressed the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the matter is overruled, and the cause is ordered placed upon the July, 1917, calendar of the court for hearing and determination on the merits.