In re Gottesfeld
| Citation | 245 Pa. 314,91 A. 494 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 84 |
| Parties | In re Gottesfeld |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued March 31, 1914
Appeal, No. 84, Jan. T., 1914, by Samuel J. Gottesfeld, from decree of C.P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1913, No 5762, ordering his name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys In re Samuel J. Gottesfeld. Appeal dismissed.
Petition for the disbarment of an attorney. Before PATTERSON, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
The court granted the prayer of the petition. Samuel J Gottesfeld appealed.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
The appeal is dismissed at costs of appellant.
Harry Shapiro, for appellant.
John Hampton Barnes, with him William B. Linn, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The appellant was a regularly admitted practitioner of law in the several courts of Philadelphia County, when on the 29th of September, 1911, he was indicted, with another, in the Circuit Court of the United States charged with conspiring to conceal assets from a trustee in bankruptcy. To this indictment he pleaded not guilty, and after trial was duly convicted and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. While serving the term of his imprisonment the Law Association of Philadelphia presented its petition in Court of Common Pleas No. 1, setting forth therein the above facts, accompanied with a copy of the indictment and record of the conviction, asking that a rule be granted requiring him, Samuel J. Gottesfeld, to show cause why he should not be disbarred and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of that court. The rule having issued the appellant filed an answer in which he admitted the fact of his conviction in the manner set forth in the petition, but denied his guilt averring circumstances which led to his conviction which, in his view, imputed no actual guilt on his part. Later he filed a petition alleging that because of his confinement in the penitentiary he was prevented from properly defending himself, asking that a rule issue directed to the Law Association to show cause why a continuance of the proceeding should not be allowed and he afforded an opportunity to be heard. September 29, 1913, the court dismissed the rule for continuance and made absolute the rule to show cause why appellant should not be disbarred. The present appeal is from these several decrees. The burden of appellant's complaint is that he was denied an opportunity to impeach, not the record of his conviction, for that was admitted, but the verdict that condemned him. In other words, he asserts that he was not guilty of the offense for which he was tried and convicted and insists that because the court gave him no opportunity to establish his freedom from guilt he was condemned unheard. The case calls for but little comment. It is fundamental that a particular sentence imposed, or judgment rendered, by a court...
To continue reading
Request your trial