Cowley v. O'Connell
| Decision Date | 07 September 1899 |
| Parties | COWLEY v. O'CONNELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
B.D. O'Connell, pro se.
B.B Johnson, for appellee.
This case is before us on an appeal by the respondent and on a motion to dismiss the appeal by the appointed prosecutor. The appeal has been fully argued by the appellant on its merits and both parties agree that it may be considered by the court without reference to the motion to dismiss. In a case of this kind nothing is open but matters of law apparent on the record. Pub.St. c. 152, § 10. There are three orders which are appealed from. The first two relate to the procedure in the case, and the third is the final judgment removing the appellant from the office of attorney at law in this commonwealth. The first of these orders was entered on May 26, 1897, directing a consolidation of the charges, and that the case be set down for trial as the first case at the June sitting of the court. Doubtless for good reasons, the case was not tried at the June sitting, and the order in regard to the time of trial was not acted upon. The appellant has not argued his appeal from this order, and we see no good ground on which he can object to the order. The record shows that on September 13, 1897, the court made another order, as follows "All preliminary matters in said cause to be heard on Friday, September 17th, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, at the court house in East Cambridge; and, unless cause is shown at that time why it should not be heard, the cause to be heard on its merits on Monday, September 20, 1897, at 9:30 o'clock, at the same place." From this order the respondent appealed. We have no reason to believe that the order was not entirely proper in matters of fact. Certainly the record shows nothing in it erroneous in law. It was an order of a usual kind in cases where preliminary questions are raised as well as questions upon the merits. There is no good foundation for this appeal. On October 8, 1897, after a full hearing, the court found upon the evidence that the truth of all the eight, charges filed by the prosecutor was established, and thereupon entered a judgment in these words: "Without passing upon the sufficiency of the second, third, fourth, and seventh of said charges as a cause or causes for his removal, it is adjudged and hereby ordered that upon the fifth, sixth, and eighth of said charges the said Bernard D. O'Connell be and is removed from the office of attorney at law in this commonwealth." The appeal from this judgment presents the only remaining questions before us. There can be no good ground for doubt that the facts alleged in the fifth, sixth, and eighth charges, and proved at the hearing, well warranted the removal of the respondent from the bar. The fifth charge is: "That in 1892 and 1893 respondent improperly appeared for both plaintiff and defendant in actions pending in this court [the superior court], and which involved the same issue." The sixth charge is that in August, 1895, and thereafter, "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moneyweight Scale Co.
...A judge ‘should be very cautious in’ holding that an entire bill should be disallowed. O'Connell, Pet'r, 174 Mass. 253, 257, 53 N. E. 1001,54 N. E. 558. The alternative presented by the petitioner, as stated in the judge's certificate, of allowing or disallowing the bill as a whole, did not......
-
In re Petition of C. F. Hovey Co.
...741, 225 Mass. 473, 479;Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 99 N. E. 229, 212 Mass. 352, 391;O'Connell, Petitioner, 53 N. E. 1001,54 N. E. 558, 174 Mass. 253, 257. It follows that the exception as to the exclusion of the question must be and is established. That exception is without merit. T......
-
In re Smith
...424, 432, 433;Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mass. 233, 27 N. E. 1010,29 N. E. 525;In re O'Connell, Petitioner, 174 Mass. 253, 53 N. E. 1001,54 N. E. 558;In re Horan, Petitioner, 207 Mass. 256, 93 N. E. 581;Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 212 Mass. 352, 391, 99 N. E. 221;Commonwealth v. Dow, 21......
-
Cowley v. O'Connell
...174 Mass. 25354 N.E. 558COWLEYv.O'CONNELL.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.Sept. 7, Appeal from superior court, Middlesex county. This was a petition by Charles Cowley for the disbarment of Bernard D. O'Connell. The respondent filed a demurrer to the charges. The court set......