In re Cameron

Decision Date23 November 1912
PartiesIn re CAMERON.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Proceedings for the disbarment of Robert T. Cameron, an attorney. Judgment disbarring respondent was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and the cause remanded, and the proceeding is brought to the Supreme Court by certiorari. Judgment remanding the case affirmed.

Littleton, Littleton & Littleton, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error. M. N. Whitaker, Dist. Atty. Gen., and T. Pope Shepherd, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., both of Chattanooga, for the State. Frank Spurlock, Frank M. Thompson, and S. Bartow Strang, all of Chattanooga, oppposed.

NEIL, J.

In the criminal court of Hamilton county, on January 13, 1912, plaintiff in error was served with the following citation:

"It appearing to the court that Robert T. Cameron is a practicing attorney at this bar, and it further appearing to the court from such facts in the possession of and within the knowledge of the court that said Robert T. Cameron has been guilty of such acts of immorality and impropriety as are inconsistent with the character and incompatible with the faithful discharge of the duties of his profession, that he has been guilty of a studied and matured purpose to commit a fraud upon the court, to wit:

"(1) That said Robert T. Cameron was attorney for and represented one J. E. White in this court at the September term on the charge of unlawfully selling whisky within four miles of a schoolhouse; that said White was convicted of said offense and was fined $250 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the workhouse; that a motion for a new trial was made by said Cameron for said White, which was overruled by the court and appeal was granted to the Supreme Court, and defendant given 30 days to file his bill of exceptions. All of the proceedings of said trial were taken in shorthand by M. O. Cates, an experienced and reputable stenographer, and a transcript of his stenographic notes was made by the said Cates and presented to the said Cameron. A bill of exceptions was presented by the said Cameron to Attorney General Whitaker for his approval, with the representation that it was the stenographer's report of said trial. The Attorney General, having confidence in Attorney Cameron, and believing his statement to be true, made a casual examination and approved said bill of exceptions as presented by the said Cameron. The court, understanding that said bill of exceptions was the stenographer's report of said proceedings, made only a slight examination thereof, but discovered that there was no proof in the record showing that the sale of whisky in question was made within four miles of a schoolhouse.

"The court, remembering that such fact was proven and should be in the record, inserted and interlined in the paper presented by Mr. Cameron the words `within four miles of a schoolhouse where a school was kept,' signed said bill of exceptions, and had it filed.

"During this term of court, on the 9th day of January, 1912, said Robert T. Cameron appeared before the court and asked that said interlineation as aforesaid be stricken out, and stated that such facts were not proven on the trial of said case; that he especially remembered it, and would make affidavit to that effect. The court promised to strike out said interlineation if it should appear that the statements of said Cameron in this respect were true. The said R. T. Cameron knew when he made said statement to the court that it was absolutely false, and he made it for the purpose of deceiving and practicing a fraud upon the court, and for the purpose of fraudulently procuring a new trial for his client before the Supreme Court.

"(2) Said Robert T. Cameron is charged with willfully, knowingly, corruptly, and fraudulently changing and altering the first seven pages of the transcript of the stenagraphic report furnished him by the said M. O. Cates, which transcript as furnished by said Cates was a correct report of the testimony produced and the proceedings on the trial. The said Cameron inserted five pages of his own composition, which did not correctly state the testimony, and correctly show the proceedings on said trial, and the said Cameron knew that his said statements as shown in said transcript were not correct, but were false and fraudulent. After altering and changing the transcript as aforesaid, the said Robert Cameron presented said paper to the court, with the representation that it was the stenographer's report of the proceedings of said trial. All of this was done by the said Cameron for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding the court, and procuring the court to certify a false and fraudulent bill of exceptions in said case.

"(3) That the said R. T. Cameron further undertook to deceive the court by attempting to have the stenographer, M. O. Cates, who reported the case, to make a statement to the court which was false and misleading in respect to the stenographic report of said case, so as to procure the court to strike out of the bill of exceptions what the court had interlined, to wit, `within four miles of a schoolhouse where school is kept.'

"It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court that said Robert T. Cameron be ordered to appear before the court on Saturday, January 20, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m., and show cause why he should not be disbarred from the further practice of law in the courts of this state, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

"It is further ordered by the court that the Attorney General, M. N. Whitaker, and the Assistant Attorney General, T. P. Shepherd, are directed by the court to conduct these proceedings in behalf of the state of Tennessee.

"The clerk is hereby directed to issue citation to said Robert T. Cameron in accordance to this order and furnish him a copy of this order."

On February 13th plaintiff in error appeared by counsel, and moved the court to permit the cause to be heard by some other judge of concurrent jurisdiction, on the ground that Hon. Samuel D. McReynolds was interested in the event of the suit; and in this behalf he invoked article 6, § 11, of the Constitution of the state, which provides as follows: "No judge of the Supreme or any inferior courts shall preside in the trial of any cause in the event of which he may be interested."

In support of this motion he filed the following affidavit:

"In this case Robert T. Cameron makes oath that by and through his counsel he has moved the court to grant him a hearing before some judge who has no interest in the event of this suit. And to that end he has asked, and he now asks, that this honorable court interchange with Hon. T. M. McConnell, chancellor, residing here and now in the city, or Hon. Charles R. Evans, circuit judge, residing here and now in the city, or any circuit judge, chancellor or criminal judge in the state of Tennessee, having concurrent jurisdiction with your honor, Hon. S. D. McReynolds, in matters of this character.

"Protesting all the while his respect for and his confidence in the uprightness and integrity of this honorable court, affiant does not believe that he can get a fair and impartial hearing of the issues before this honorable court for the following reasons, which he humbly begs to respectfully submit:

"First. Your honor, affiant is informed and believes, entered the order against affiant, citing him to appear and show cause why he should not be disbarred; and this order was entered on your honor's own motion, and is in substance a recitation that affiant is guilty of the things with which he is charged. Therefore your honor stands in relation of prosecutor in this case, and to that extent is a party to the suit or proceedings.

"Second. Your honor, affiant is informed and believes, is a witness in the case about a most material matter of fact, and your honor is the only witness against affiant as to the matter of fact; and your honor has on divers occasions and in divers places stated to divers people your honor's version of the conversation between your honor and affiant as to that matter of fact which caused your honor to enter this order, and which is the gist of this action against affiant; and your honor is naturally interested in the event of the suit and in having your honor's version of the controversy sustained and accepted.

"Third. Your honor has, as your affiant is informed, on several occasions expressed feelings of prejudice against affiant, and on one occasion used substantially this language:

"`It does not make any difference whether Cameron confesses or not. I can prove his guilt.'

"Affiant, protesting his high regard for your honor's position, and yet feeling no more keen resentment than what is human and possible at what your honor may have said in a moment of sudden exasperation, because of some real or reckoned sin of affiant, respectfully and humbly insists that, with this opinion formed and expressed about affiant, your honor, in the nature of things, is bound to have some interest in the event of the suit.

"Affiant avers that your honor is prosecutor and witness, and has, by virtue of your honor's position, selected counsel to represent your honor in the prosecution of affiant; that your honor has expressed the opinion that affiant is guilty of the charges, has caused an order to be entered solemnly declaring and reciting that affiant is guilty, and affiant respectfully and most earnestly insists that your honor is interested in the suit.

"All the time protesting that he means no disrespect to your honor, or your honor's high office, but that he may be tried according to the forms of law, and in the manner prescribed by law, and under the Constitution of his country, affiant makes this affidavit in support of the motion filed, that he may be tried by a court having no strong feeling against him, no fixed opinion as to what the facts of this case are, and no interest in the result."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • State v. Oliveira
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2001
    ...official oath." Turnbo v. Turnbo, No. 01A01-9307-CH-00314, 1994 WL 44943 at *4-5 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb.16, 1994) (quoting In re Cameron, 126 Tenn. 614, 151 S.W. 64 (1912)). See also Charles Bleil & Carol King, Focus on Judicial Recusal: A Clearing Picture, 25 Tex.Tech.L. Rev. 773, 798-99 (1994)......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 23, 1991
    ...adverse to the state dictated recusal in Leighton v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 91, 414 S.W.2d 419, 421 (1967) (quoting In re Cameron, 126 Tenn. 614, 151 S.W. 64, 76-77 (1912)): " * * * The fundamental principle is that parties litigant are entitled to an impartial judge. * * * But it is of immen......
  • Abrams v. Jones
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1922
    ... ... on the plaintiff instituted the charges is sufficient to ... brand the proceedings as unfair. (12 C. J. 1225; ... Commissioners Union Drain Dist. No. 1 v. Smith, 233 ... Ill. 417, 84 N.E. 376, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 292; In re ... Cameron, 126 Tenn. 614, 151 S.W. 64.) ... "It ... is not sufficient to state merely legal conclusions. It is ... necessary in a complaint to charge the acts of unprofessional ... or dishonest conduct and facts complained of against the ... accused licentiate." ( Board of Medical Examiners v ... ...
  • State v. Rimmer
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 20, 2008
    ...Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee all litigants a hearing before an impartial decision-maker. In re Cameron, 126 Tenn. 614, 658, 151 S.W. 64, 76 (1912); see also Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) ("every procedure which would offer a pos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT