Ex parte Wall.
Citation | 2 S.Ct. 569,27 L.Ed. 552,107 U.S. 265 |
Parties | Ex parte WALL. * |
Decision Date | 16 April 1883 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Chas. W. Jones and Wilkinson Call, for petitioner.
Jas. W. Locke, U. S. Judge, for himself.
A petition was filed in this case by J. B. Wall for an alternate writ of mandamus to be directed to James W. LOCKE, district judge of the United States for the southern district of Florida, to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue to compel him to vacate an order made by him as such district judge, prohibiting said Wall from practicing at the bar of said court, and to restore said Wall to the rights, privileges, and immunities of an attorney and proctor thereof. The petition set forth the proceedings complained of, and an order was made by this court requiring the judge to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The rule to show cause has been answered, and we are now called upon to decide whether the writ ought to be granted.
The proceedings of the court below for disbarring the petitioner were substantially as follows:
On the seventh of March, 1882, during a term of the said court, held at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same court exercising both Circuit and District Court jurisdiction, J. W. LOCKE, the judge then holding said court, issued, and caused to be served upon the petitioner, the following order:
[Signed] 'JAMES W. LOCKE, District Judge.
'Tampa, Florida, March 7, 1882.'
Wall appeared in court at the return of this rule, and, on the following day, filed a written answer, as follows:
'This respondent, now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to himself all and all manner of benefits of exception to the many errors, uncertainties, and imperfections in the said rule contained, prays leave to object, as if he had demurred thereto, to the right, authority, or jurisdiction of this court to issue said rule and require him to answer it:
'(1) Because said rule does not show that the matters therein charged took place in the presence of the court, or were brought to the knowledge of the court by petition or complaint in writing under oath; and,
'(2) Because respondent is charged in said rule with a high crime against the laws of Florida not cognizable in this court, and for which, if proven, this respondent is liable to indictment and prosecution before the State court; but for answer to so much of said rule as this respondent is advised that it is material or proper for him to make answer to, answering, saith——
'He denies counselling, advising, encouraging, or assisting an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering or mob in taking one John from the jail of Hillsborough County, and causing his death by hanging, in contempt and defiance of the law, or that he has been guilty of any unprofessional or immoral conduct which shows him to be unfitted for the position of an attorney and proctor of this court, as he is charged in the said rule.
'Whereupon he prays to be hence dismissed, etc.
[Signed] 'J. B. WALL.'
The court overruled the exceptions to its jurisdiction, and called to the stand Peter A. Williams, the marshal of the district, whose testimony, at the request of the respondent, was reduced to writing, and was as follows:
'Peter A. Williams, being duly sworn to testify, says:
'I saw Mr. J. B. Wall and others come to Mr. Craft's house about 2 o'clock March 6th, and having already heard that a sheriff's posse had been summoned to protect the jail, I though by the orderly manner they came in that it was the sheriff's posse coming for instructions. I was sitting on the end of the piazza, and did not go in the house, but sat there till they came out, thinking they had come for instructions.
'When they came out I heard one of the party remark, 'We have got all out of you we want.' Mr. Wall was one of the party.
'I did not see him afterwards until the hanging was over, then the crowd had increased, perhaps, to 200 persons, and I went down to them to the plank-walk.
'This was Monday of this week, the sixth of this month, I think, in Tampa, Hillsborough County.
'I also saw Mr. Sparkham, the mayor of the city, protesting at the time of the hanging.'
To cross-questions he says:
'When the man fell from the dray he fell his full length to the ground; the rope was slack.'
On the next day the court, after argument by respondent's counsel, made an order in the case, 'That J. B. Wall be prohibited from practicing at the bar of this court until a further order herein.'
The answer of Judge LOCKE to the rule granted by this court to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, states:
'That during a session of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States at Tampa, in said Southern District of Florida, he, the said James W. LOCKE, presiding, on the sixth day of March, A. D. 1882, at the adjournment of said courts for dinner, at about 1 o'clock of said day, as he was passing from the court-house, a prisoner was being brought to the jail in the same yard by two officers; that upon his return to the court-house after dinner, in a little more than an hour, the dead body of the same prisoner hung from the limb of a tree directly in front of the court-house door; whereby he became personally informed of the commission of a most serious offence against the laws. The same afternoon he was informed of the active participation in said crime of one J. B. Wall, an attorney of said court, by an eye-witness in whom the most implicit confidence could be placed, but who declined to make any charge or affidavit of such fact on account of a fear of said Wall's influence and the local feeling it would cause against him, the said witness.
'That not only from the direct statements of eye-witnesses, but from numerous other sources, reliable information of like import was received; whereupon said J. B. Wall, your petitioner, was, on the said seventh day of March, during a session of the Circuit Court of the United States, in open court, charged in writing by the respondent herein, as judge, with having, with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, taken from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hanged to a tree by the neck until he was dead, a man to the court known only as John; and cited by rule served upon him to show cause by 11 o'clock A.M. of the next day, the eighth day of said March, why his name should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys and he prohibited from practicing in the United States courts of said district.
'That at said time of return, said J. B. Wall appeared in person, and by counsel, and moved that whereas said rule had charged him with a criminal offence, indictable by the grand jury of the courts of the state, the matter be continued until after the meeting of such grand jury; and the matter was held under advisement by the court and continued until next day.
'That at the opening of the court the next day, before any order had been made upon the pending motion, came said J. B. Wall and withdrew said motion for continuance, and filed answer demurring to the right of the court to issue the rule served upon him, because [ and demanded that proof be had of the matter charged. the contents of Wall's answer,]
'That thereupon Peter A. Williams, Esq., United States marshal for said district, being duly sworn, testified as follows: [ the testimony of Williams, as before given.]
'Whereupon J. B. Wall, being himself present and stating that he had no testimony to offer, and desiring to be heard by counsel, was so heard, and the court took the matter under consideration.
'Afterwards, to wit, on the tenth day of March aforesaid, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo
...the purpose of preserving the courts "from the official ministration of persons unfit to practise in them." Ex Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 288, 2 S.Ct. 569, 588, 27 L.Ed. 552 (1883); Heiberger v. Clark, supra, 148 Conn. at 183, 169 A.2d 652; Grievance Committee v. Broder, 112 Conn. 263, 265, ......
-
In re Steen
...... was reversed by the Supreme Court of 1843, because citation. was not served upon the respondent in the court below. . . Ex. parte Heyfron, 7 How. 127. . . The. statutory function of admitting attorneys to practice,. disbarring and reinstating them long since ...705; Re J. W. Robinson, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 525, 92 P. 929; Re David Evans et al., 53 L. R. A. 952,. 22 Utah 366; Ex parte J. B. Wall, 27 L.Ed. 552; In re. Tyler, 78 Cal. 307; People ex rel. Elliott v. Green, 7 Colo. 237, 3 P. 65; In re Badger, 4. Ida. 66; Sanborn v. ......
-
Ex parte Redmond
......618. . . The. power to disbar is rather to be used with moderation and. caution and should be used for only the most weighty reasons. . . There. was no such proof in Redmond's case whatever.[156 Miss. 442]. . . Broadway. v. Fisher, 13 Wall (U.S.) 335, 20 L.Ed. 646; Matter. of Stern, 137 A.D. 909, 121 N.Y.S. 948; Re Campell, 32. U.S. 2B. 444. . . A. disbarment charge being criminal or quasi-criminal, the. charges should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. . . People. v. Alder, 263 Ill. 319, 104 N.E. ......
-
In re Schlesinger
...331, 334, 135 A. 732, 50 A.L.R. 380; In re Disbarment Proceedings, 321 Pa. 81, 184 A. 59; Kraus's Case, 322 Pa. 362, 366, 185 A. 737; Ex Parte Wall, supra. As stated in Childs et al. Smeltzer, 315 Pa. 9, 15, 171 A. 883, 886: 'A duly admitted attorney is an officer of the court and answerabl......
-
Should We Elect or Appoint State Government Executives? Some New Data Concerning State Attorneys General
...Rel. Landis v. S. H. Kress and Co., 115 Fla. 189, 155 So. 823 (1925).25In re Lord, 255 Min. 370, 97 N.W. 2d 287 (1959).26Ex Parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, at 274 (1882).27For instance see: Arlen C. Christenson, "The State Attorney General,"MCMLXX Wisconsin Law Review, (January, 1970), pp. 33The......