*1 IN THE SUPREME COURT. [150' mаtter oe Ebbs. which No. grant issued, but to the line of No. entry .893 3058, 895,was upon which No. grant based. This appears from the of the two clearly wording grants. 173 of the Chapter Laws of 1893 for the correction of provides the calls of the entries by the descriptions grants issued to N. George Folk, and declares the latter to be “the true and proper descrip tions.” This act was before the passed entry defendant had been laid. The court did not err in the ver setting aside dict and ordering a new trial.
No Error. I.
In the matter N. EBBS. (Filed December, 1908.) Attorneys Proceedings 1. to Disbar. — Proceedings attorney, brought provisions to disbar an under the 1907, 941, of Public Laws eh. are of a civil nature. 2. Same “Convicted” —Other Jurisdiction —Power of Courts. 1907, 941, Chapter upon Laws does not confer the' court he to disbar because has been “convicted” State cоurts or of United States. of.another 3. Same. 211, Iievisal, disabling sec. is a and withdraws from attorneys the court the to disbar convicted of crimes in ¡mother jurisdiction. J., dissenting. Clark,
Brown, J., and C. Peebles, J., ActioN tried before upon demurrer, heard at May Term, 1908, of Buncombe. 941,
Pursuant provisions chapter Public Laws Committee on Grievances of the North Carolina Bar Asso- ciation filed with the Solicitor of the Fifteenth Judicial District an accusation stating that, investigation of certain charges them I. N. preferred Ebbs, before licensed attorney and member of the Bar of the State, residing district, said were the said committee that said charges should investigated by be further the statute. provided by A and the charges records were copy they accompanied report. founded solicitor caused thereupon TERM, 0.] In the matter of Ebbs. together with an report records, accusation preferred *2 himself embodied in
by report, the be served on said attorney. Peebles, B. Son. R. made an order Judge presiding, thereupon the reciting before proceedings had the committee, directing said I. N. Ebbs to him, Asheville, 0., before at on a appear day named, and answer said the return charges. day On I. N. said Ebbs duly being by counsel. appeared, represented The committee was by the solicitor of district represented and other counsel. The accusation was founded certified records from States, the- Circuit Court of the Eastern United District of Louisiana, a bill of showing indictment returned with in six grand jury, charging respondent counts. "forgery acts in specific charged consisted and unlawfully, falsely feloniously forging altering accounts, and certain receipts, etc., with intent to defraud United a trial States. before Upon court, said was convicted the counts respondent all of ex- first, in the cept imprisonment sentenced Parish of Prison the Parish of New for the term ninety Orleans a fine days pay $1,000.
. Respondent evidence, demurred to the as follows:
“The respondent, Ebbs, I. N. with leave of objects sufficiency of the accusation solicitor for preferred State, in the above-entitled amended, proceeding, says:
“1. The said accusation contained no cause for the disbarment respondent, on of a conviction the defend- except allegation ant of crime be- alleged punishable the penitentiary, Court, fore and District for the Eastern United States District Louisiana. That
“2. said accusation this with charge does been convicted crime since the having passage chapter of any 941 оf Laws of North passed year Carolina is a
“3. That the conviction said accusation alleged punishable by. conviction an offense not the penitentiary if laws of North even the offense had com- Carolina, within mitted the State of North Carolina.” the following
His Honor overruled demurrer and rendered judgment: TI-IE IN SUPREME COURT. oe the matter Ebbs. ordered, adjudged
“It is and decreed said I. N. tbat tbe Ebbs from hereby be and be disbarred as an at law tbe attorney as an of tbis practice attorney State, and counselor tbe courts and tbat tbe name of tbe said I. N. Ebbs stricken from tbe State, roll of tbe of tbe tbis attorneys courts of practicing tbat be bencefortb be and all rights privileges denied tbe of an of North counselor tbe courts of tbe State Carolina. clerk of tbis send a certified hereby
“Tbe court is ordered to Clerk of Court of copy judgment of tbis to tbe tbe Superior County, Carolina, Madison North and tbe clerk of Madison bis will tbe court.” judgment enter same tbe docket County excepted and Respondent, appealed. *3 Attorney-General Hayden
Assistant for the State. Clement Sr., Adams and M. defendant. Gudger, Adams & J. for Because of raised by J. novelty Connor, to the pub the demurrer of the and the respondent, importance statute under lic of the correct interpretation welfare we the record instituted, have proceeding given tbis Tbe of 1907 a and anxious consideration. statute (chap careful at of Bar Associa ter was enacted the instance the State 941) discharge of it to more effectually tion for the purpose enabling the bar State, by its of the courts and people to the duty This unworthy from the members. excluding рrofession in which have been inter upon first instance the courts called its pret provisions. and enforce be dis at law must attorney “That an provides: Section bis following (a) Upon for causes: and removed barred of a being by imprisonment convicted crime punishable him When rendered (b) judgment penitentiary, any him and retained attorney by him as an by for collected money or thereof. any part bona claim thereto without any fide disbarred,” etc., may at law Tbat attorney “Sec. 2. causes. two naming first, tbe based respondent Tbe to disbar the motion causes for several tbat, among the will be observed section. It is the disbarred, tbis must or which an TEEM, O.] OF EBBS. IN THE MATTER
one in which tbe court is required record, to act a respondent is not permitted offer of defense anything by way or The exculpation. court into his inquire guilt. cannot The production of the a makes record, showing conviction, it the of imperative the court to duty expressing disbar him. ’Without as to the wisdom of so drastic a we are not permitted to enlarge its terms construction. by says a canon recognized construction must penalty be confined to a conviction had in a this State. The case was thoroughly argued us, before and the industry coun sel has afforded much us aid. Counsel for respondent rely upon laid Mr. rule down Justice Gray Logan United States, 144 S.,U. that case the (p. 303). plaintiffs error were indicted the Circuit Court the United States murder and conspiracy, under of an act of provisions Con gress. The indictment was found and case tried in a, State of Texas. The Martin Government introduced one witness. that he had been convicted in the appeared courts Carolina of North a felony imprisonment sentenced county jail. The Texas statute rendered convicted person of a felony incompetent to' the courts of that State. testify In discussing admitting to the of the court exception ruling the witness, it was said: “At common law and on general prin ciples when not controlled statute jurisprudence, by express to a conviction and giving effect within the State which enacts it sentence such conviction and sentence can have State, another or of disability disquali effect way penalty personal *4 which beyond judgment fication the limits of the State in the is rendered.” The as a question, to the of applied disability as a to person State, offered witness arose in this in State testify, Candler, 10 C.,N. when it .was a divided by held in that a witness convicted of infamous crime Tennessee in incompetent testify this State. The Ohief Justice concedes that such was in was of opinion not law but England, faith that virtue of the “full and credit” clause of Fed by eral in Constitution the law this was otherwise. The country a case, discussing Court was not in construing statute that but a of The general law. has decided other principle SUPREME COURT. IN THE hatter oe Ebbs.
In the weight of authority and tbe decided States, in otter many wise Parker, J., in in case. C. Candler's is the decision Green, hold writes a able Mass., 515, very opinion, Com. v. in of an infamous crime a foreign “The conviction that ing not in United States does render other of the country any witness in the courts of conviction an incompetent such subject a : “To hold on says person incompetent of Massachusetts.” He is to effect the conviction give such conviction acсount of and thus laws penal punishment; enforce well-settled others,” violating of would reach into our State Simms, 466, it Y., appears In Simms v. 75 N. principles. that “No of State it provided that a statute that com felony- a shall be upon sentenced conviction person J., “I Rapadlo, etc. said: pardoned,” unless petent testify, this stat think it that the created disqualification clear quite a conviction in this State.” consequent upon ute had in to exclude the witness was Ohio. upon conviction relied Evidence, weight on who Quoting says Greenleaf aris be that personal disqualification modern seems to law, but from esj>ecially not from the laws of nature ing positive and cannot strictly as are territorial nature, such are a penal they origi than that which country be enforced other to the question “I think this doctrine nated, says: applicable he hand, nothing there is in the Constitution now and that or requires which such prevents application United States testify such disabilities, incompetency as personal convicted of a vote, imposed upon person or to which be in all him and be enforced State, crime one should follow pro constitutional If such were the operation others. courts of witnesses called our vision, the qualifications made, to the laws might depend voters at our elections Justice notices our own.” The learned other States instead of the argument the decision in Candler’s case and meets Attorney-General, is founded. It insisted it action. think, we that this is a criminal and, correctly, should is rather in the nature of a civil proceeding, probably This, we in the name of Bar Associаtion. prosecuted in Maine —Penobscot notice, is done several the States —as Kimball, proceeding, civil Me., Treating Bar v. *5 FAIL TERM, O.] OE EBBS.
IN THE MATTER it is clear that the a record of conviction in a criminal action in another Judge jurisdiction would not be conclusive guilt. Rapadlo “A says: record of conviction a for crime-is not conclu evidence, sive in civil a action, of the facts which it was based. There is a great weight-of its authority against being admissible at all, as except evidence of the fact conviction, when fact that is material.” Ev., 537; Greenleaf sec. Wharton sec. 108; Ganitee Conflict Am. Laws, Bond, 102 Md., 379; Anno. Eng. Cases, 915. The was point de presented Quar 569—Ex parte cided in an in 2 interesting Ya., case West rier. applicant admission to bar the was licensed duly as an in and, another State, with statute complying the made State of newly Virginia, West he was met with the objection that he was his native treason, having State voted for the ordinance of secession and enter voluntarily the ing army the had Confederate States. He received a pardon from the President. The Court held that he was entitled to be admitted, “Indeed, it not saying: forgotten must that this case treason State West against Virginia, the whose courts are invoked to consider has either subject, proved or confessed, acts that could amount to the stated and^the crime of States, treason were perpetrated against United for which has been that Government. party pardoned hold, Now it would be as too far to contended straining point that war for, being waged against States, United Virginia one, waged which the State of West was' therеfore against against her sense statute contemplated were treason treason, therefore the acts For, the State and within the statue. while it against felony trea might is not intended to the same act constitute deny State, son also it against against the United States and war enough wage generally the United States or Union, as of the national but collectively component parts * * * must directly against particular. be done State attorneys, has to the court exclude cir appeal An been made is, public policy cumstanced -applicant ground But political light. of baleful influence danger 160—4 *6 THE COURT. IN SUPREME OR EBBS. THE MATTER
IN than Legislature addressed to the better are considerations these lawmaking true policy be the the courts. Whatever to determine. for that to is a pursue the is to expound to pursue courts and true duty policy it to to be, it leave ought if it is not what is, and, law as it change it.” Legislature Co., (p. is said S., Insurance 127 U. In Wisconsin v. where the crime : “The place punishment 291) proper crime but any concern and no takes committed, society we 326. When Eq. (3 Ed.), what is hurtful to itself.” Karnes sound thing” “reason consider the question upon with find it laid down law, State wisdom of the we policy, the interpreta It is natural uniformity, is manifest. practical conduct, the defining of all statutes offenses and creating tion to' penalties, is made indictable or doing subject of which this acts within to the commission such solely refer them of crimes punishment imposition State. r.espect limits and act own territorial States within their penalties, n its own No State can Federal within sphere. Government maintain for-their statutes, administer Federal prosеcutions J., Parlcer, O. or or punishments j>enalties, violations impose case, the facts which supra, says: in Green’s “Whether wisely which an infamous crime are the same would be here deemed which record like offense in the from country constitute the with knowing certainty. the court will have no means comes, to be different coun The crime treason known different also in our be felony country may felony tries. What is nation another, and it is for the competent every attach to the commission of offenses disabilities such may wholly consequences.” laws of other nations without all practically know that the Federal Government punishes We in the Violations penitentiary. offenses with imprisonment turpi no moral involving revenue often laws, technical in our so acts which whatever, may Again, punished. tude fine а short misdemeanors, punishable by are State deemed are deemed of correction, or house of county jail term in the State’s imprisonment and punished by character grave codes, and makes it's penal Each State Prison other States. FALL TEEM, 1908. O.] 03? EBBS. IN THE MATTER the Federal If Government does the same. other any interpre- tation were our statute it would put upon follow that logically for violation of the Federal statutes or statutes of other States citizens of this State would forfeit their to vote under our right Constitution. of North Carolina never Certainly people contemplated that such construction would be their put upon laws. Care had to in mind must be the fact keep clearly enforcing does not and cannot inquire *7 whether in truth the has committed the crime charged. It is restricted to he has “cоnvicted,” whether inquiry having and for this the record of conviction a court purpose by and conclusive, to hear and jurisdiction charge determine him. is made for pardon the Court must disbar No provision "Weare of the or for followed a life of repentance, probity. by sound reason the that well-settled opinion principles in a conviction State. statute is confined to this in to the act regard this that, It is insisted however the court under be disbarred by respondent may suggested section-211, in Eevisal. conferred power of 1907. the act repealed by implication that this statute is by in is not conflict the last statute that opinion incline to the We 212 Eevisal. It is not necessary 211 and of the with sections while the because, language we should decide question, attorney, courts to disbar an of the restricts cleаrly power have been convicted he shall language, exceptive “unless offense, of some criminal confessed himself court or open are to be trusted,” etc., interpreted himself unfit showing 1907; “convicted,” same as the word the act of way 211 met section enforcing hence the same obstruction is bemay of this history legislation The respondent. understood refer of the Legislature learned and the purpose Moore, ex 397; Biggs, parte, ex 63 N. parte, C., ence to Schenck, 353. The last case C., ex 65 N. C., 202, parte, most eminent mem was with a wealth of argued learning by held that the act of bers of the Bar of the State. The Court not constitutional;, was it did (Eevisal, see. 211) that the court the court of of its “inherent deprive powers”; any causes other than those had no to disbar an fo* power аttorney COURT. IN THE SUPREME EBBS. OF MATTER IN THE law “It is a concludes: The the statute. prescribed came be observed.” ought to be the land fore, 1. Pear C., 66 N. ex parte, Haywood, again the Court of the the effect J., son, consideration after a careful G. said: an attorney, to disbar statute upon court the from the takes sec.'211) (Revisal, act of 1871 “The members, except of unfit bar purge common-law power to be other power any fails to cases, provide and it specified enabling not an disabling in its It is a used place. the hands to be to tie seeming purpose the whole liberty at the court is taken away, when one so, inef to be adjudged it had before another which fall back Schenck, case, This proposed.” fectual to the end accomplish Mer- and Mr. Phillips Mr. Moore, ex Mr. argued by parte, industry loyalty lеarning, eminent for their rimon, counsel desirous of exert was evidently The Court to their profession. to com Legislature as had been left to ing such power dis or be a conceded discharge duty derelict pel had that “the to the conclusion barred. It came that, doubt hands.” do not entertain tied its We an inherent the courts have legislation, of restrictive absence *8 are who attorneys names of to strike from their rolls power members. unfit and unworthy found reason of their conduct by An and uniform. are numerous decisions to this effect in Penob to found is be upon instructive opinion J., Dickerson, “An Kimball, says: Bar 140. Me., scot terms of from the court, an as appears is officer of attorney office wit: ‘You will conduct office, yourself his oath of to knowledge to the best of according your of an attorney as as well to the courts and with all discretion, good fidelity, judg is the to the bar clients.’ The order of his admission your legal quali requisites, ment of the court that he possesses him to practice character to entitle fications and moral good of his Prom the moment an at law. of profession to responsible he becomes of his office entrance the duties upon is office The tenure of his misconduct. the court for his official of it only deprived and he can behavior, during good court, after oppor- determined misconduct ascertained and TEEM, 0.] In the mattes oe Ebbs. bas
tunity to be beard been afforded. tbe absence of specific contrary, to tbe of provisions tbe removal is commensu power * * * rate of witb tbe If a moral power appointment. good, bar, charаcter is to entitle one to admission to tbe indispensable it is tbat tbe for its necessity obvious continuance becomes conflicts, excitements and to which temptations enhanced tbe ' tbe For bis official misconduct practitioner daily liable. there of in tbe court. This is no removal but tbe tbe court, preserve therefore at once to necessary protect integ and maintain tbe purity justice of tbe administration of * * * mistaken subject, of the bar. It is a view of this rity an attorney as to conclude tbat foregoing show, tbe authorities ‘in attor at can for acts done bis officeas law be disbarred On term of bis of office. ney’ courts,’ or ‘with tbe tbe oath of disreputable prac tbe contrary, attorney may and without tices in bis gross private capacity immoralities witb him unfit associate tbe оf tbe court which render to pale him bis pro for tbe faithful of gentlemen, disqualify discharge him unworthy in or out and render duties, court, fessional from arises, such a ease justice. minister in tbe forum "When attorney’s condition of tbe causes, whatever acts or tbe cardinal character,’ a moral bar, ‘good to tbe tbe possession admission of tbe it will tbe solemn forfeited, duty become it revoke case, authority tbe presentment a due tbe fitness and legal member as a gave offending symbol tbe or tar exercised for evil moral lest should be uprightness, Mills, J., 1 Minn., parte, ex Whipple, shame.” C. nished witb advised being officially after Court, “Should this says: name be good possessed bas tbe its officers forfeited tbat one of him bis bold office, still when to assume tbe duties permitted confidence, would, my they -of out tbe world worthy a them .еast performance duty fail tbe opinion, and to themselves, to tbe bar owe to duty they It is a tbe law. good be wielded for jtower see tbat public tbe Tbe bands. or dishonest incompetent for evil is not entrusted *9 intended as a punishment is not expulsion judgment extreme tbe to necessary as a measure individual, but tbe inflicted of us tbat to right have a demand tbe who public, protection 54 IN THE SUPREME COURT. ti-ie matter oe Ebbs.
In to no shall be aid the administration of permitted person Ex parte, whose character is tainted with justice corruption.” Smith, Cal., 28 20 ex Ind., 427; Fletcher v. 47; Daingerfield, Kirke, Brown, In 12 parte, Fla., 278, 2 State v. Miss., Wescott, J., writes an the statutes opinion, reviewing exhaustive case, Percy’s and decisions in this England country. Goodrich, 651; In re Y., Wooley, 95; People Ky., Smith, In Ill., 148; re 85 Pac. 584. These cases all hold Rep., that for or conduct in character, other his official dishonesty showing absence of moral court has the good character, the inherent to as in them, disbar an Some of attorney. case from when without reference to his Maine, hold that of ficial or duties relations he of such the court conduct strike his name from the roll of its may attorneys. none do the cases the courts to Legislature undertake how far the say limit this inherent and essential do may We not deem power. it to proper express upon this delicate any question. This Court having held, cited, in the cases that the act of 1871 section (now did not it of Revisal) its essential deprive inherent powers this we do respect, not care disturb or draw the question into discussion. have Whatever the reasons for passing they longer exist, having passed with away the conditions whiсh brought them into action. We are sure the statute in the Re- re-enacting visal of 1905 it was not the intention of the “tie the hand” unduly of the court preserving high stand ard of conduct and character of our which has bar, been the pride of the people of the State. We have no doubt that if it appears the Legislature that larger power the courts is n necessary enable them discharge duty their will be to confer prompt it or to withdraw any undue restrictions now existing. Even for so laudable an end as purging bar of unworthy members we should not exercise doubtful or unnecessarily come into conflict with the Legislature. We do not entertain that, any doubt the restrictions notwithstanding placed upon the courts the statute, ample power exists to protect-them and from their suitors indignity, fraud, dishon esty malpracticе on part of its officersin the dis- *10 TERM, O.]
IjST OE EBBS. THE MATTER charge of their official duties. is manifest, however, that for of the commission crimes which affect seriously their moral character, but have no direct with their connection practical immediate relation to courts, the to disbar attorneys -restricted of the to convic- express language statutes tions of the class of crimes named in To give the statutes.
other construction to statute would not do violence to well-settled not contem- principles, might but lead to results plated by If, shows, respond- as the record Legislature. ent is his of the crime name should be stricken charged, from roll State, seen, in this we have attorneys but as now exists in to We were requested by the court do so. on to this ex- grievances the committee to our express had as tent, tо the end that such further legislation may to aid would enable Bar Association the courts the State bar How far it is wise removing unworthy from the members. to to define the crimes or confine cases the mode punishment as the basis for action for the consideration compulsory general Like all Legislature. legislation application, in individual cases. miscarriage difficult avoid danger procedure with the method of impressed We favorably have been case, 64 140. There the accusa- Me., in the Kimball followed cause, a to show and, a notice bar, upon was made tion court; to the testimony report reference was ordered to take its -of upon was disposed after the case argument, whereupon, will not this appeal us of made by merits. The disposition of respondеnt investigation a further fitness prevent im- now if the restriction bar, to be member continue committee- The action removed. the court is posed have They be commended. is in all respects grievances on remove the respondent, the failure duty, their discharged is no forgery, been convicted has shows, record who, as the Superior to the remanded must be The case fault of theirs. proceeding, to dismiss direction Buncombe, with Court of investigate the power confer shall unless since showing for conduct disbar motion to pass guilty of he has been from this Court his license he received his violated he has In this conduct. criminal dishonest THE IN SUPREME COURT. oe In the mattek Ebbs. be “will oatb that demean himself honestly practice of In such attorney.” investigation the his record of conviction will be competent of his guilt. evidence do hold We the commission of a crime, other infamous felony “showing *11 him to be to unfit be trusted the discharge the duties of his profession” committed in another he State, should not dis- barred the courts this State. The not question is presented. obvious that a man will who commit or forgery perjury or be otherwise dishonest in one State is a fit a not to be person member of the bar of this State. stat- simply We hold that the ute (chapter 941, Laws 1907) impose does not the upon court the or duty confer the to disbar an power because he has been “convicted” the courts of another State or the United States. We further hold that the language 211, section Re- visal, disables the court from for the conviction of disbarring crime in another jurisdiction, in the exercise of its “inherent to deal with its re power” We occаsion in In attorneys. had Applicants, C.,N. to the 1, consider of our power to refuse to license who were shown be of bad applicants to' character, moral and extent subject the to which it was to legis- lative control. The subject was the carefully considered and a opinion of of the Court and majority expressed able exhaustive of Mr. opinion Justice Solté. The amended the promptly statute, restoring to the Court the power to pass upon the moral character of applicants. Laws ch. 70. long and honorable Bar history of North Caro- lina, distinguished by its learning, high and personal profes- sional and its standards service patriotic State, to is justly regarded by with Prior to people pride. court, so far as our records public show, had called exercise its power to disbar attorney. The unfortunate conflicts of period the Civil following War called to the neces- attention for sity defining more clearly rights relative powers the bench bar. The courts promptly wisely recognized of the Legislature and the statutes enacted it as the “State’s collected will.” If new bringing neces- conditions sity restoring the “inherent powers” to the courts we exist, should in the same spirit obey law, with the assurance that TERM, 0.] matter oe Ebbs. legislation such will be enacted as will enable tbe Bar Asso ciation, with the aid of the remove from the roll the names of men who are forgery, whether committed or this State elsewhere. do not see We reason any good why, if the law be so changed permit it, Court, as this pro ceeding, serious investigate question presented by the action of the committеe on after grievances, and proceed, full hearing, of it as will dispose by making such order pre of the integrity bar, so far purity serve is concerned. While we do construe his demurrer to the not. as an
evidence admission of his guilt, because under the statute it, it was not to him to we are if open deny is conferred Legislature, is due him and investigation the Bar of that a full had, the State and that he either be him charge resting upon relieved he be disbarred his name stricken from the' roll of *12 attorneys. There seems be a of the lan misconception plain In guage, statute. unmistakable terms it says conviction of the court must crime the disbar. No question or can respondent’s guilt is The presented. judge did give not and could not possibly respondent leave answer the commission of the offense. He denying power hаd hear determine If question. such the court power limited, is it is because has The Legislature done so. same can remove the It is power limitation. not a whether question men law felony Carolina, shall in North but practice power whether court shall exercise of which Moore, deprived parte; has them. ex It was in attempted, Schenck, ex ex Biggs, parte, parte, with and the us, Legis Garland, lature hands” of Court. Ex parte, 71 “tied 333. S., be, U. We must the law as we it to with declare find of criticism. out fear The courts of this will exhaust State their to purge the bar of but dare unworthy members, assume to do so.
The cause will be remanded Court of Bun- Superior combe, with direction aside to set the order disbarring respond- action in ent, taking such further the premises may be in accordance with The General Assembly the law. cоnvenes COURT.
58 IN THE SUPREME OE EBBS. THE MATTER IN if fit, it see 1909, and, in Wednesday January, oil the first * 211 will clothe of the Revisal amendment to section very simple to proceed. with full power Remanded. I unable to with breth J., agree my am
Brown, dissenting: It have reached in this proceeding. ren the conclusion they for the purpose of the Bar Association brought is at the instance law in the right practice of his depriving but character, not criminal its courts of this State. but punishment, not for the civil; instituted, purpose purely of justice the courts object preserving with the wholesome to practice of a unfit person from the official administration as well as Great settled in this country) them. This is well admis control over the courts have Britain, where the exclusive them. all before practitioners the disbarment of sion as well as Wenton, 5 Pac. Wall, Rep. v. State рarte, S., 288; Ex 107 U. Finn, 759; 52 Pac. Rep. (Oregon), v. 342; State (Oregon), Crum, v. State 257; Scott W., (North re Dakota), 24 W., S. 789. (Texas), nature, civil its merely
Inasmuch as the proceeding post be ex cannot brought, which it statute of under Watson can arise. such character, and no its facto Sanders, Mercer, Wheat., v. S., 110; Ogden U. Peters, S.,U. most seri- of a respondent, charges preferred I. N. Ebbs, said follows: That the character, “(2)
ous are as in the United States Court December, 1903, 4on convicted a certain bill District of Louisiana Eastern for the and that the said hereto, which is attached indictment, a copy *13 to a term of imprison- the said court by was sentenced duly Ebbs The crime guilty. returned a verdict had ment, jury after the imprisonment was so convicted punishable of which he was of which the was respondent The offenses penitentiary.” as follows: “Unlawfully, in the are petition, as set out convicted, and as true a uttering publishing feloniously and knowingly n and feloniously knowingly Unlawfully, receipt. (3) certain Land to the General Office and transmitting presenting a the United States certain false Interior of Department TERM, 0.] In the matter of Ebbs.
receipt. Knowingly, and transmit- (4) unlawfully feloniously a and and certain account ting presenting approval payment and claim and the Government of the States. against United and with (5) Unlawfully, intent knowingly feloniously, States, transmitting defraud the United to the presenting General Land a certain and fraudulent voucher. Office false (6) Knowingly, and with intent to unlawfully feloniously, States, defraud the United a certain false claim presenting violation of sections 5421 and 5438 of Revised Statutes of the United States.”
The record shows that tried a at respondent duly by jury Term, 1903, States, December оf the Circuit Court of the United at New a Orleans, convicted sentenced to fine to be pay imprisoned, and that he was imprisoned accordingly. his demurrer to the admits the respondent, by petition,
truth of the facts therein; is, stated he admits that he has convicted of the offenses jury charged, punishable by imprisonment penitentiary. useless to discuss the character of the crimes of which the
respondent has been convicted. It will be admitted all that one who has committed them should not be permitted practice in the courts of the State. I concur with brethren that our my courts have such if are investigate charges and, they disbar But I differ from them sustained, respondent. is now The learned
holding any investigation necessary. he below, who heard this matter in the court when over judge answer, him leave to file an demurrer, gave ruled the respondent’s to do. The should have availed respondent he declined allega himself of his to answer the truth of the right deny anfl which is made a indictment, part tions contained in the bill of here and should have insisted that the Court petition, If him. investigate charges the truth of the preferred him a could have give declined to trial the judge when his demurrer was over doing that, Instead of appealed. mute and refuses to answer. What honorable
ruled he stands courts, fit in our would stand silent in the practice attorney, of such accusations? He should have courted investi presence His refusal to answer and the truth of the accu gation. deny *14 IN THE SUPREME COURT. .
In the matter oe Ebbs. here, a trial them and to demand bill, sations in the could the judge bis disbarment. "Wbat else sufficient to justify lias was rendered? Tbis Court enter the tbat judgment do but cаnnot tbat opinion, as I understand beld, because of the A, subsection disbarred under section by imprisonment are not punishable the acts committed laws, because State, and, secondly, tbis penitentiary by crime in tbis State of a been convicted has 'not the respondent I the construction placed think in its penitentiary. punishable to its contrary spirit entirely, too narrow the act is an attor “Section 1. Tbat declares: Tbe statute and purpose. following for the disbarred and removed law must be at ney a crime punishable'by' convicted of being (a) Upon causes: in the penitentiary.” imprisonment enough are broad those words conceded tbat It must be under the the penitentiary and sentence' to a conviction cover so, I being Tbat States. or of the United laws of State a more re rеquires construction of no canon of know recognized of the them. One given to be stricted construction such construc when tbat, possible, declares rules of construction sought the object will effectuate a statute as should be given tion was to of the act purpose Tbe undoubted be accomplished. who are members of its those from the legal profession remove end Tbe people. of the and confidence of the unworthy respect with members deal of those’who is the protection to be attained not bar, punishment. of the the profession due well as the welfare, respect The public confidence enjoy its practitioners tbat law, requires Court Supreme enough,” says “It is community. He must honest. tbat be be Connecticut, attorney “for It is abso honest. to be must be believed more. He tbat and tbat be be enti of an the usefulness essential to lutely be practices.” wherein community tled to the confidence 11. Conn., Taylor, Bar v. County Walker, most impress- has written Justice brother, learned My be tbe standard which should character high of tbe ively which must follow consequences grave and of tbe our profession, be has to wbat anything to add I cannot hope its debasement. 33. C., p. at 143 N. Applicants, In re well said. so TERM, 0.] *15 OE EBBS. IN THE MATTER can conduce more to lower nothing admitted that
It be must than to convicted felons permit degrade legal profession in their penitentiaries, from other who have served terms States, A penitentiaries law in our courts. term practice as much to or of one of our sister States tends United States his as a legal a man’s character and to usefulness impair destroy I in institution. Therefore adviser as a term our own penal to exclude that the meant see no reason to suppose We must bear from oúr courts. North Carolina convicts only with the dealing was not Assembly in mind that the General what law, declaring simply of criminal but was administration from a profession class of should be excluded persons I see our people. with the welfare of so connected intimately such under willing accept, not be no reason we should why courts of other States circumstances, judgments matters we must In all property of the United States. other own. we to our give faith and credit extend to them the same Palmer, this prin- recognized 9. We have S., 107 U. Embry a witness convicted in holding this State ciple comity of North in the courts in was incompetent Tennessee forgery Hendеrson. Justice Carolina, strong opinion by in a Chief is there Candler, then, reason, 393. What C., State v. intend to exclude did not General Assembly suppose have been condemned those who
from our courts practice of our common laws of other courts judgments felons by again over them impossible try ? country practically for the charges, truth of the or to investigate this State must our reach. We witnesses are beyond evidence and the let we must or else jurisdictions, of other accept judgment stand about of the felon’s cell them those who the odor carry our courts. up plead commit crimes excluded who if those are to
Again, exclude those Carolina we can never the State of North States, though even the laws of the United who are felons under with treason damned.” they “be of this given
Under thе construction sentenced for a distant larceny State convicted and might be IN THE SUPREME COURT. '[150 Ik the oe matter Ebbs. State and return and his pursue profession unmolested, as it might impossible bring witnesses here whose evidence he was convicted.
I am convinced that the language of the statute is compre- hensive to exclude enough from our courts all who have been convicted in the United or of any States, State thereof, of a crime which under the laws' of such jurisdiction punishable imprisonment penitentiary, universally recognized method of punishing criminals. I feel sure such was intent Bar Association in framing act, and that the. such was the purpose of the General it, Assembly enacting I think it should be so construed. *16 J.,C. dissents ground that the commission Clark, of a felony makes the anywhere unfit member of an party honorable profеssion, and is a for ground disbarment under .our (Revisal, statute sec. If it be conceded that 211). the “con- viction” thereof in jurisdiction another is not such proof fact as our statute contemplates, yet when the judge gave the respondent leave to file an answer the commission of denying the offense he did not do so. The charge, based on a certified judgment upon conviction in the United States Circuit Court, not being denied, must be taken as admitted in open (Re- visal, sec. for this is 211), a civil proceeding. Our courts could not “convict” the respondent for a felony committed elsewhere, with a view to punishment crime, but in a civil proceeding for disbarment it could as to the fact inquire whether com- he mitted the act alleged. Offered the opportunity open he did not answer the charge, and, there being issue raised, the court properly gave judgment.