26 P.2d 710 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
This case, in certain of its aspects, is similar to the case ofBold v. Board of Medical Examiners, ante, p. 29 [
In the instant case the appeal is grounded upon the claim that the proceedings of respondent board are void for want of jurisdiction; first, because appellant was denied *39 due process of law by the board's rejecting as a defense the fact that appellant had been acquitted by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of the only charge contained in the complaint upon which his hearing before the board proceeded; second, that the board based its decision solely upon improper evidence which it admitted; third, that the board received, presented and considered evidence offered outside appellant's presence and from persons not sworn.
[1] The first contention is in effect that the respondent board should have permitted appellant to enter the plea known in some jurisdictions as "autrefois acquit" and in California provided for by subdivision 3, section
Counsel for appellant say in their opening brief: "Proceedings for disbarment of an attorney for criminal practices have been held to be criminal in nature. (In re Bar Association of SanFrancisco,
[2] As to the claim that the board based its decision solely upon improper evidence which it admitted, it may be said, first, that proceedings of this character are not governed by the strict rules of evidence or procedure that obtain in court trials (Suckow v. Alderson,
Judgment affirmed.
Conrey, P.J., and York, J., concurred.