In re Enright

Citation160 Or. 313,85 P.2d 359
PartiesIN RE ENRIGHT
Decision Date13 December 1938
CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
                  See 5 Am. Jur. 415
                

W.V. Van Emon, of Klamath Falls (U.S. Balentine, of Klamath Falls, on the brief), for T.J. Enright.

John F. Steelhammer, of Salem (Otto J. Frohnmayer, Kenneth G. Denman and Harry C. Skyrman, all of Medford, on the brief), for Oregon State Bar.

KELLY, J.

On December 9, 1936, the Oregon State Bar filed a complaint with its Board of Examiners against T.J. Enright. On December 16, 1936, the accused filed an answer thereto. On April 2 and 3, 1937, a hearing was had before the trial committee. On October 5, 1937, said trial committee filed its findings and recommendations. On October 26, 1937, accused filed his notice of appeal with said Board of Governors. On February 26, 1938, said board caused to be filed in the supreme court their decision and recommendation together with the transcript of the hearing had before the trial committee and all other records in the matter. On June 11, 1938, the accused filed with the supreme court his notice of appeal from the findings, recommendations and decisions of said trial committee and said Board of Governors, and on said last named date with said notice of appeal the accused filed his brief herein. On July 1, 1938, the brief of the Oregon State Bar was filed herein.

Count 1 of the complaint alleges that on or about the 24th day of October, 1934, in the justice's court for Medford district the accused was convicted of the crime of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which crime was committed on May 20, 1934, in Jackson county. For this defendant was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100.

Count 2 charges a conviction of defendant in the circuit court of Jackson county of a similar offense committed on August 11, 1934, for which defendant was sentenced to serve 90 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $100.

Count 3 charges a conviction of defendant in the city court of Medford upon a charge of being drunk in a public place in said city on December 22, 1935, for which defendant paid a fine of $10.

Count 4 charges in effect that defendant has willfully failed to support the laws of the state of Oregon, by committing the three offenses just enumerated.

The trial committee found that count 5 was not proved. We concur with the finding of the committee and, therefore, refrain from discussing said count.

Count 6 charges that defendant issued certain checks upon banks wherein he did not have sufficient funds with which to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Oliver, Matter of, 784
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1986
    ...arose in states under whose statutes any conviction for any criminal offense would serve as a basis for discipline. In re Enright (1938), 160 Or. 313, 85 P.2d 359, rev. on other grounds 239 Or. 82, 396 P.2d 216 (1964) (any misdemeanor or felony conviction a basis for discipline); Matter of ......
  • State v. Shay
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1972
    ...as to the particular principal in the crime, State v. Commedore, 239 Or. 82, 85--86, 396 P.2d 216 (1964) (overruling In re Enright, 160 Or. 313, 85 P.2d 359 (1938)), we hold that, if the principal is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, the crime is deemed a felony for purposes o......
  • People v. Fahselt, 90SA447
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1991
    ...manslaughter, resulting from driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, justified indefinite suspension); In re Enright, 160 Or. 313, 85 P.2d 359 (1938) (lawyer twice convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor disciplined by six-month suspension), (overru......
  • State v. Commedore
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1964
    ...out in an opinion by Redding, J., that a sentence must conform to the statute authorizing it. The defendant relies on In re Enright, 160 Or. 313, 85 P.2d 359 (1938). In that case Enright, an attorney, had been twice convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicat......
  • 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