Court Opinion

ID: 9865106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:24:01.277102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:22.784299
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
I am unable- to concur in the judgment pronounced by the court. The only testimony which warrants the judgment was given in the form of depositions by Melissa F. Hogue and Anna Stokes. These women were ad*506mittedly guilty of a felony in the matter out of which this proceeding grew. They say the respondent procured them to malte false oaths and this he denies. In addition to the fact that their reputations for truth and veracity were discredited by reputable witnesses, the reading of their depositions convinces me they are devoid of honor and unworthy of belief. The Hogue woman admitted an acquaintance of more than 30 years with Ford-ham, the man in whose interest, through, these witnesses, it was sought falsely to establish a will. She and Ford-ham came from the same town in Arkansas. Mrs. Stokes, when testifying concerning the execution of the will, was asked, “Did you do it for Boutcher,’ ’ and answered, “No, to help Mrs. Hogue.” And again, that she went to Boutcher’s office at the “request of Dr. Fordham and Mrs. Hogue.”
When there was threat of prosecution these women fled the state, going by different routes and modes of transportation. They were intimates here and when their depositions in this proceeding were taken they were living at the same address in California. Manifestly it was to their continued interest to- place the blame on the respondent and to shield themselves behind a claimed belief that they relied upon Boutcher’s statement of the law.
Many small things in the record point to their lack of credibility. Mrs. Hogue testified that on the day the will was “witnessed” by them “Boutcher and Fordham —and I believe French was driving—came and took us to Boutcher’s office.” Mrs. Stokes’ version was that “We walked to Boutcher’s office. It was only two doors from where Mrs. Hogue lived.” Boutcher says they were never in his office for the purpose of attesting a will. Are we to believe the statement of either of these women on this point when it is considered that Mrs. Hogue lived in the Loop Market Block, the place from which they both say they started for Bouteher’s office in the Mining Exchange Building* to witness the will? These *507two places are separated by one block, too short a distance to require the use of an automobile as Mrs. Hogue testified they did, and too great a distance to be described as being "only two doors” apart, as Mrs. Stokes swore.
Bbutcher’s testimony w,as that his only connection with the will was to accompany Fordham and these women and French, the now missing third witness, to the court house, to supervise the taking of their depositions, the will having been sent to the clerk of the Denver county court by an Arkansas probate court for that purpose. He said he had no previous knowledge of the will. On the theory of his testimony he did nothing that any reputable attorney would not have done. Fordham had been his client and when he requested the respondent to go to the court house and attend the taking of the depositions he tendered employment not only unusual but quite otherwise.
Examination of the record must, as. I view it, cast grave doubt upon the likelihood of the respondent’s guilt. At least he should be accorded the benefit of that doubt, for it is accorded to the meanest of those who face criminal prosecutions. The loss of the right to practice his profession is of the most serious consequence to a lawyer. The hardships which the average American practitioner must go through to attain his license, the sacrifices of his family, are too familiar to need rehearsal. We should not lightly, or upon evidence clearly capable of an hypothesis of innocence, disbar a respondent brought before us; we should be convinced-of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is not that quantum of evidence here.
Boutcher is young and poor. He has struggled to emerge from the poverty which was the lot of his ancestors and into which he was born. There is testimony to this effect given by eminent and honorable members of the bar, who. say that in all his professional relations he was high-minded, just and fair. To disbar this young man upon such testimony amounts to saying that we *508shall no longer endeavor to struggle with the problem of punishing the guilty if an innocent man can possibly be convicted.
I think the objections of the respondent to the referee’s report should be sustained and the rule discharged.