*1 but his own an upon them, judgment experienced as what man to the value of he purchased. business The is therefore affirmed. judgment
No. 12,547. People ex rel. Bar Colorado Association v. Boutcher. (4 910) [2d] P.
Decided October Rehearing 1931. denied November 1931. Mr. Robert E. Winbourn, Mr. Attorney General, L. Mr. Attorney General, Ireland, Clarence Charles Harry Roach, Deputy, Dean, Assistant, Mr. Oliver Mr. for petitioner. Silverstein, S.
Mr. S. D. Mr. I. L. respondent. Crump, Quiat, En Banc. the opinion of
Mr. Chiee Justice Adams delivered court. Attorney General, leave granted, filed a peti- attorney against an Boutcher, in. J.
tion disbarment entered, to show cause at law. order An appointed members, its court one of answered, and this *2 after tak- who, H. as Moore, referee, Honorable Julian report ing Ms written made matter, in the gross respondent of referee finds the court. The professional practice in of law in misconduct Respondent charged petition. has filed in the state as objections report, now and the matter is be- his to. such report and the us for final determination on such fore objections thereto. omitting report, follows: title,
The referee’s is as Report. “Referee’s “Upon grievance recommendation of the committee by of the Supreme of Colorado Bar Association and direction Attorney day Court, the on the 27th General, January, petition charging of filed a H. 1930, J. gross professional misconduct, as follows: August
‘1. at On, to-wit, 1, 1927, Denver, Colorado, procured respondent and and and abetted caused aided causing procuring Hogue Stokes, in Anna Melissa F. and sign, sign, H. French to and did and John their writing purport- to an instrument of names as witnesses ing tjhe L. H. Fordham. to be last Will and Testament of July writing 1924, of was dated and 12, Said instrument together instrument, certificate witnesses signatures follows: with the of said is as by ‘Signed, published the said L. declared sealed, and for her last will the said as and Fordham, testatrix, presence, presence and in in her testament, us, who, request presence have and in the and at her other, each signed day July, 1924. 12'th witnesses hereto Lawrence Street
‘Anna Stokes 1627 Hogue Lawrence Street ‘Melissa F. 1627 Gilpin ‘John H. French ‘ present the time said L. at Said H. Fordham signed respond- and instrument, witnesses said this fact ent well knew. ‘ July probate On, to-wit, the clerk of the court 28,1927, County, of Garland L. Bon- Arkansas, issued Thomas county City and as clerk court of fils, Denver-, Colorado, a commission to take the State depositions Hogue proof in French, said and Stokes, of the execution of the. aforesaid L. instrument said H. Fordham as her last there- Will Testament, August on, to-wit, after, caused procured causing pro- and aided and abetted curing appear Stokes, said French to the said Bonfils in the court office house Den- give under ver, Colorado, and then and there oath to depositions proof their execution of said instru- ment L. H. Fordham said as her last andWill Testa- *3 sign typewrit- ment and then there and and swear to a concerning- ten statement said instrument as follows: of
‘Proof Will
‘State of Colorado ss
‘City County Denver, and of regard probating
‘In of will of the late ss H.L. Fordham, ‘Personalty appeared before me Thomas L. Bonfils, Clerk County County, and Probate Courts Denver Hogue Colorado, Anna Stokes, Melissa F. and John H. being duty say: French to me well who known, sworn, subscribing foregoing- that are the witnesses to the writing purporting instrument of to be the will last and of L. testament H. Fordham, deceased; that said instru- place person ment time, was executed and therein L. IT. named; said Fordham, testatrix signing- upwards was at the time of said instrument twenty-one years disposing age, and of sound and mind memory, presence and that in the and all of these affiants she declared it to be her last Will and Testament presence all of in the subscribed her name thereto
and request affi- affiants; Testatrix, that at the of said these presence tjieir her in her names to said ants wrote Will subscriptions presence ; each other that the and writing genuine, foreg’oing* instrument and is the which hereto instrument attached that the said the said so witnessed and saw identical one that affiants sign. H.L. Pordham
‘Anna Stokes ‘Melissa, Hogue P. H. French. ‘John day me 6th sworn ‘Subscribed August, 1927. County Bonfils,
‘Thomas L. Clerk City & of Denver, Court, (Seal) State of Colorado. foregoing of said Stokes, statements
‘The time, was executed at the French that said instrument place pres- person named; therein L. H. declared ence of said Fordham all said affiants her last Will Testament said instrument presence; and her name thereto in their subscribed request of Fordham affiants wrote their names at the said presence, her her were each and all false Will in said bjr every particular known re- were then and there ’ spondents to be false. on March cause, to a rule to show “Pursuant wherein he filed answer thereto denied professional alleged: gross misconduct and *4 appeared the said witnesses mentioned before ‘That the Thomas L. Bonfils at his office in the Court said Denver, Colorado; their own free will House, at of and through instigation influence or volition the of some other respondent person party to unknown. or That this respondent appeared place taking the time and of the at pur- depositions proof of the of the said execution attorney ported paragraph the will in said mentioned, request of Doctor Ford- and advisor and at Walter the purpose merely ham and for no whatsoever, other taking the formalities incidental the see that proof complied of the will were with.’ alleged, had no that he substance, “He further purported concerning knowledge will of a or information days appeared he H. a few before L. Fordham until Bonfils, Thomas Clerk the said L. witnesses County City County Denver Court attorney request Fordham; of and as for F.W. August, day or F. Fordham on brought about the 6th W. Anna Melissa Stokes, said three prior office; F. French toi and John spoken he had to nor met seen, thereto neither Anna prior Stokes; he knew the French witness John Hogue through that time and had met the witness Melissa Fordham; that all of the witnesses were of Ford- friends procured sign ham who had them to the Will without any knowledge part respondent; that the by respondent presenting service rendered was the introduction said witnesses Thomas L. Bonfils, Clerk of the Court; that had no rea- genuineness son to doubt the of said Will and believed it legal document; that some six months later he was forg*ed informed that the will was and that was genuineness first time he was ever in doubt as to its suspicious validity thereafter became of its and so in- attorney L. formed Stark, J. an of Denver who re- tained investigate Consul Switzerland to validity of the will.
“Upon the issue so framed, matter was set down hearing by your and heard day referee on the 28th of November, 1930. Thereat witnesses were sworn who reputation testified to the bad character Anna Hogue. Stokes and Melissa F. namely, Other witnesses, Philip Manning Hornbein, Otto A. Freidrichs, B. and Gil- *5 McDonough, testified Bar,
bert1 members of Colorado' lawyer good respondent reputation, of hon- was a esty integrity. Respondent testified substance Depositions alleged Stokes and in his answer. Anna May interrogatories Hogue, Melissa F. taken on oral pursuant stipu- Long 16, Beach, California, 1930, evidence. Both de- lation, were offered and received in posed signed subscribing the will that the witnesses three years July alleged in the date, after its several presence of each other of the testatrix and in the absence respondent respondent Fordham; and of and W. G-. sign proper it then and there assured them that was accompanied respondent said instrument and that later they ap- present to the and was when them Court House peared L. Bonfils, before Thomas Clerk ques- signed Court, and the “Proof affidavit ‘Will” tion. respondent hearing, was allowed the close
“At concerning gen- days affidavits five in which submit reputation and Me- of Anna Stokes eral character and Hogue. A. B. Man- were filed affidavits P. Such lissa ning R. Walker. and John foregoing evidence, the referee finds
“Based gross profes- is has been and practice law in this state as in the sional misconduct petition. charged in said
“Julian Moore, “Referee.” objections respondent’s the re- The substance findings “That the Referee’s port is, referee necessity have been based on conclusions P. and Anna Melissa Stokes.” witnesses, of two objections argumenta- remaining portion of disregard or we must disbelieve effect that tive, testimony deposi- named whose the above credibility im- their has been read, because were tions peached. any, attempt if contradict little, There *6 proof that the in the attestation clause the declarations purported will of the Mrs. Fordham were late testimony given with reference false, or the thereto county City before the cleric of the court of the perjured. was seems to be of Denver This con- question respondent’s' pertains ceded. The before to us alleged charged. participation in the offense as placed
1. The
the
the reliance
be
extent
testimony
accomplices
by
is
in this state
a line
settled
beginning
of unbroken decisions of this court
with the
reports
continuing
second volume of our
eighty-seventh.
to the
People, 2
Solander v.
Colo. 48, 67; Hoff
People,
man v.
212
552,
560,
72 Colo.
559,
848;
Pac.
Ham
People,
ilton v.
Colo. 307, 309,
87
“The defendants’ instruct jury the guilty the that the effect defendants be found not guilt
because evidence of the the was uncor- testimony accessory or roborated of an co-defendant. jurisdiction. cases.) (Citing Such is not law properly jury “The co-urt instructed to receive testimony great caution. Our ever decisions, may since Solander the effect that one case, testimony convicted the uncorroborated of an ac- complice, convincing, it but that be clear must must great beyond guilt be received with show caution, ’’ reasonable doubt. We have not denied the above benefit of contrary freely rule, but on it him, have accorded due have reached our without con- conclusions sideration. supra, People, page
2. In Hamilton v. we said reported 309 case: “It is admitted that the testi mony accomplice of one was corroborated that of an required other. When corroboration is this is sufficient. People, v. 49 Colo. Pac. 794.” Tollifson apply quotation depositions We the above They particulars. agree in essential and Stokes. story way own her and in her her own own Each tells language. supplies of which are Each some details, of these incidents are tri- omitted the-other. Some perfect complete fling they go- but themselves, Hoguei picture. The and Stokes evidence of the witnesses any they thought coached were is such as to-exclude The truth of or that their manufactured. is, by surrounding- their statements also corroborated have all These considerations facts circumstances. judgment, entered into our must done in have hearing* grievance com- court, arm of *7 Association, mittee of also later the Colorado Bar before the referee. testimony respond- the-
3. have overlooked We reputations Hogue the to the effect that ent’s witnesses veracity if bad, be but Stokes for truth characters, naturally aspect. Such it has a double so, sought to lend their sordid talents to the after would be perjury. have other kind could been No commission veracity person procured. A would have with habits of indignantly scorned such an invitation. agree respondent’s do-not with counsel to find
We lawyers mercy place will honorable at the him unscrupulous or or clients witnesses. Each vindictive on its own facts is at be determined case must and there observation of Dean for sober reflection least food Wigmore: passed period (as long- the “We have since possible out) judge pointed it ‘when is modern has struggling punish with man; innocent we are now the an punish any longer possible problem the it is whether (2d Ed), p. Wigmiore guilty’.” § 21, Evidence 210. on depart we be if should 4. effect would disastrous The quoted from which we have rule of evidence from the People, supra, and declare the v. Hoffman accompilices the reach same result inadmissible, or argument by disparagement by wholly exclusion discounting or probative testimony. force of such Such perpetration methods aid in the would of crime in- immunity punishment, sure from so the more odious impossible might offense, more it be to convict. only place As one it instance, would the law descents and distributions under the control of domination and unscrupulous persons, pleasure-, at their will who, might easily beggar orphans other widows lawful or lawyer engaged It heirs. is unthinkable. For a pursuit public estranges in such a is a menace the- and’ calling. portrait him from an honorable The as a whole, presented any record, is inconsistent con- charges against respondent clusion other than that the amply been have sustained.
Respondent goes by now name of J. Boutcher; ap-pears applied his name so letterheads, his but he practice signed for admission to law and oath of office ap- under the name of pears EL Butcher. Jacob His name so attorneys. -onour roll of malee this "We statement purpose identification. objections report of the referee are report approved. overruled and the- is It is further judgment respondent’s court that name be and stricken) hereby attorneys from the roll of and that he practice be and is fro-m disbarred the further of law in *8 this state.
Respondent disbarred. Moore, Justice who acted
Mr. as referee, par- does not in the ticipate decision the court. Mr. Justice Butler Hilliard and Mr. Justice dissent.
Mr. Hilliard Justice dissenting. judgment pronounced by
I am unable- concur in the only testimony judg- court. The the which warrants the given depositions by ment was the form of Melissa Hogue F. and Anna Stokes. These women ad- were in the matter out which felony of a mittedly say respondent procured the They grew. this proceeding In addition he denies. oaths and this them to malte false veracity for truth the their reputations fact that reading witnesses, by reputable were discredited they me are devoid convinces of their depositions woman ad- The Hogue of belief. unworthy honor and Ford- years than 30 of more acquaintance mitted an these through, in whose interest, man ham, Ford- a will. She falsely it was to establish sought Stokes, in Arkansas. Mrs. ham from the same town came was will, the execution concerning when testifying ’ “No, answered, you Boutcher,’ “Did do it asked, she went Mrs. help Hogue.” again, And Fordham and of Dr. “request Boutcher’s office at Mrs. Hogue.” women these there threat prosecution
When was different routes and modes fled the going state, and when their were intimates here They transportation. were liv- they were taken in this depositions proceeding it was Manifestly address in California. at the same ing the re- the blame on to their continued interest to- place be- behind a claimed themselves spondent to shield statement of they lief that relied Boutcher’s law. record to their lack small in the
Many things point day that on the Mrs. testified credibility. Hogue “Boutcher and Fordham will was “witnessed” them I took us driving—came —and believe French Mrs. version was that to Boutcher’s office.” Stokes’ “We It two from walked to Boutcher’s office. was doors says they where Mrs. lived.” were Hogue office for the a will. purpose attesting never believe the statement of either of women Are we to these it on this when is considered Mrs. point Block, Market from which Loop place lived in for Bouteher’s say they both started office Building* witness the will? Mining Exchange These *9 places separated by two too short a dis- block, are one require tance the use of Mrs. to an automobile as great testified too did, and to be described distance being "only apart, as two doors” Mrs. Stokes swore. w,as testimony only
Bbutcher’s that his connection accompany with the will was to and these Fordham missing women and now third to French, the witness, supervise taking depositions, court house, their having the will been sent to the clerk of the Denver county probate pur- court an Arkansas court that pose. previous knowledge He said he had no will. theory testimony nothing any On the did his he reputable attorney would have done. not Fordham had been requested his client and when he go to depositions taking to the court house and attend the employment
he tendered unusual not quite but otherwise. of the record I must,
Examination as. view cast it, grave upon guilt. respondent’s doubt the likelihood of the At least he be accorded the of that doubt, should benefit for it is accorded the meanest of those who face crimi- prosecutions. right practice nal The loss his profession consequence lawyer. the most is of serious to a hardships average practitioner which the American go through must license, attain his sacrifices of his family, familiar too to need rehearsal. should We lightly, upon clearly capable hy- or evidence of an pothesis respondent brought disbar a innocence, guilt beyond us; we should be convinced-of his a reason- quantum able and there is not doubt, of evidence here. young poor. struggled He has
emerge poverty from the which was the lot of his an- testimony cestors and into which he was born. There is given to this effect eminent and honorable members say professional who. in all bar, relations high-minded, just young he fair. To disbar this saying man amounts to that we *10 508 problem struggle longer with the endeavor no
shall possibly punishing man can if an innocent be convicted. objections refer- to the
I think the discharged. report rule and the ee’s should be sustained Mr. Justice dissenting. Butler judg- dissenting join my from the I Hilliard in brother ment disbarment. years ago. practice twelve
Boutcher admitted to was by required admitting- law was this him, Before court good moral character.” he “of be “satisfied” that good moral §6000. to be of That he continued L.,C. has testimony reputable by character evidenced is con- one testified no bar, members this trary, except to the miscon- who swore the two women proceeding’. charged against As said him in duct this by my emphatically denied brother Hilliard, explana- any wrongful a reasonable and made conduct, Opposed to with the transaction. tion of his connection perjurers, testimony whose is that of two confessed his by testimony, corroborated I read the is record, any with Boutcher’s or circumstances inconsistent fact confessedly perjury They when committed innocence. credibility their will; testified execution testimony impeached by of credible was otherwise honored who has been whom, one of high said that both office, election to constituents reputed generally of the lowest moral women “were falsity trickery, type, and unfair- were known for their repu- dealings, ness in and bore worst all business veracity.” nothing in I find for truth and tations suggest willingly who women, these two so record to testimony concerning the execution falsified in their undergone change in moral a radical their have will, now enlisted under the banner and are character testimony evidence, in their admissible Truth. That disputed. case has There has with the no one connected suggestion departure been no of a from the rule an- People, nounced in v. 72 Colo. Pac. Hoffman majority opinion. probative cited in the The force challenged case, has been however, my opinion, successfully challenged. and, in charge against pun- Boutcher- a constitutes crime, proper proceeding, by ishable, confinement in the penitentiary. truly, argument: His counsel stated in oral charged “If Boutcher did what he is he not with, peniten- should be also disbarred, but should be tiary; charged wjth, pro- if did do he not what he is *11 ceeding should be dismissed; there is no middle course.” On record as we have before I am us, unable to finding felony concur in charged. he is which my
For the reasons stated in opin- brother Hilliard’s opinion, respectfully ion and in I dissent.