Crumpacker, In re, 29285

• Decision Date: 22 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 29285,29285
• Citation: 130 N.E.2d 775,235 Ind. 135
• Parties: In re Owen W. CRUMPACKER. Clarence H. Harney, Hammond, Indiana, Relator-Appellant.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 775

130 N.E.2d 775

235 Ind. 135

In re Owen W. CRUMPACKER Clarence H. Harney, Hammond, Indiana, Relator-Appellant.

No. 29285.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 22, 1955.

George E. Hershman, Crown Point, Straley Thorpe, James J. Richards, Hammond, for appellant.

Owen W. Crumpacker, Hammond, pro se, J. Edward Barce, Kentland, for appellee.

BOBBITT, Chief Justice.

This action was commenced by the filing of 'An Information and Motion to Disbar' in the Lake Superior Court under Acts 1937, ch. 88, § 2, p. 452, being § 4-3614, Burns' 1946 Replacement.

The issues were closed by the filing of a verified answer by respondent. Upon change of venue to the Newton Circuit Court, trial was had by the court which found for the respondent-appellee, Crumpacker, and entered judgment against relator-appellant accordingly.

First: We are confronted at the outset by a petition to consider the record filed in this appeal as an original information in this court and that the petition be considered as supplemental thereto.

Rule 3-21 of the Supreme Court, 1954 Edition, pertaining to disciplinary proceedings is as follows:

'Original actions to disbar, suspend, or otherwise discipline members of the bar of this state may be instituted in this court by the Attorney General of Indiana, or a commission of members of the bar of this court to be appointed annually by this court, without leave. No other person may commence such a proceeding without leave of court first had and obtained, and the clerk is directed not to permit such proceedings to be filed, except by the Attorney General or said commission, until such leave has been granted.'

The petition here was not filed by the Attorney General or the Disciplinary Commission appointed by this court. Neither was leave obtained by relator-appellant for its filing. Because the petition in no manner complies with the provisions of Rule 3-21, supra, it is dismissed.

Second: Having disposed of the petition mentioned above, we will now consider the questions presented by the record on appeal.

Circuit and superior courts have jurisdiction concurrent with this court in disbarment proceedings broughts in conformity with the provisions of § 4-3614, supra. Beamer v. Waddell, 1943, 221 Ind. 232, 45 N.E.2d 1020; In re Harrison, 1953, 231 Ind. 665, 109 N.E.2d 722.

The grounds relied upon for reversal are: (1) That the decision and findings of the court are not supported by sufficient evidence; and (2) The decision and findings of the court are contrary to law.

The burden was upon relator, Harney, to establish the allegations of his information by a preponderance of the evidence, In re Filipiak, 1953, 232 Ind. 414, 417, 113 N.E.2d 282; and a decision against him cannot be attacked upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain it. Pokraka v. Lummus Co., 1952, 230 Ind. 523, 528, 104...