90 N.Y.S. 740 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1904
We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the appellant’s declaration that his conduct in connection with the unfortunate incident, which has heen the subject of examination on this appeal, was inspired by what he believed to be his duty to his client and that he had no intention to reflect upon the judge of the Court of Sessions, whose direction he disobeyed. His persistency in seeking to have the court reverse a ruling time and again made ivas, doubtless, prompted by zeal, but at the same time under a very mistaken apprehension of what his duty really required. Where, through an honest but erroneous conception of duty counsel transcends the proprieties of a trial, an ample apology and expression of regret would ordi
Under the circumstances of the case, without intending to impute to the appellant anything more than excessive zeal and a misunderstanding for the time being of what his duties required, we think the penalty of a fine was properly imposed and that it is by no means excessive.
The writ must be dismissed and the order of commitment affirmed.
Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ.
Writ dismissed and order affirmed.