In re H====== S======
| Decision Date | 16 March 1934 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF H --- S --- |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Motion for rehearing overruled March 27, 1934.
Original disbarment proceeding against H S .
RESPONDENT DISBARRED.
This is an original proceeding in this court looking to the disbarment of one H S , hereinafter spoken of as the respondent, who has been duly licensed to engage in the practice of the law in this State. The charges, duly verified and in writing, have been preferred by certain members of the bar in good standing, who constitute the Committee on Grievances of the Bar Association of St. Louis.
The complaint, which is based generally upon the second classification of grounds for suspension or disbarment as the same are enumerated in the statute (Sec. 11707, R. S. 1929; Mo. St. Ann., sec. 11707, p. 626), is that respondent has been guilty of malpractice and misdemeanor in his professional capacity as an attorney-at-law.
Specifically the charge is that in March, 1932, respondent attempted to corrupt and induce one William Van Horn, a member of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis, to violate his duty as a police officer by giving and furnishing to respondent confidential information contained in the official reports of the said Van Horn and other police officers to their superiors and relating to arrests accidents, and injuries to persons, for the purpose of enabling respondent to prosecute claims and suits for damages against the persons alleged to be legally liable for said accidents and injuries; that as a consideration for the said Van Horn's violation of his duty, respondent offered to pay him the sum of five dollars a week, and as part consideration for information to be thereafter given actually paid Van Horn the sum of five dollars; and that while Van Horn accepted said sum, he did not do so with the intention of complying with the request and solicitation of respondent but instead reported the matter to his superior officers.
It is further charged that respondent solicited and requested Van Horn to include in his written reports to his superiors of accidents and injuries investigated by him a false statement to the effect that the person or persons responsible for such accidents and injuries did not carry liability insurance covering his or their liability for the same, in order that such written reports would deceive and mislead other lawyers who might be seeking employment at the hands of such injured persons.
Following the exhibition of the charges in this court, respondent waived the issuance and service of the citation, and duly entered his appearance in the proceeding. Thereafter he filed his return, admitting his license to engage in the practice of the law in this State, but denying generally each and every allegation, statement, and averment in the petition contained, and praying for the dismissal of the petition.
Notwithstanding the joinder of issue on the face of the pleadings, at the hearing on the charges the facts upon which the charges were based were tacitly and in effect admitted by respondent through his counsel, who not only put on no evidence themselves, but did not even cross-examine the two witnesses who were brought forward by complainants. Such witnesses were Officer Van Horn and his wife; and inasmuch as Mrs. Van Horn was used purely for purposes of corroboration, that is, to testify to whatever bits of conversations she had happened to overhear between her husband and respondent, it is obviously Van Horn's testimony alone which is of prime importance.
At the time in question Van Horn resided at 8972 Edna Street, in the city of St. Louis, and was assigned to duty as a patrolman in the fifth police district commanded by Captain Hoagland. About two o'clock in the afternoon of March 21, 1932, Van Horn was home changing his clothing preparatory to reporting for duty, when an automobile containing two men was stopped in front of his house. One of the men alighted from the automobile, and began sounding the horn of Van Horn's own car which was parked alongside the curb at the time. Mrs. Van Horn went to the door and inquired what was wanted, whereupon the one who had been sounding the horn, who seemingly was respondent, replied, "I want to see Bill."
As a matter of fact respondent was not acquainted with Van Horn at all, but was feigning familiarity for the purpose of getting the opportunity to speak with him. Van Horn did go out to the street, whereupon respondent extended his hand, advising that his name was S , and that he was an attorney. Van Horn at once disclaimed any acquaintance with him, and inquired what it was he wanted. Respondent thereupon called attention to the fact that he was an attorney, and Van Horn a police officer, and that the latter was on duty in the fifth district, where a great many accidents and police reports came within his observation; and then he stated that he, that is, Van Horn, could make a lot of "easy money." Upon Van Horn's inquiring how this could be accomplished, respondent replied that all he would have to do would be to furnish respondent with information of all accidents.
The conversation closed with a suggestion from respondent that he would again see Van Horn the following day. Van Horn thereupon went to the station, and made a full report of the occurrence to Captain Hoagland.
About one o'clock in the afternoon of the next day, March 22, 1932, respondent again called at Van Horn's home, and after some casual inquiry about the clerk in the fifth district, asked if Van Horn had any accident reports for him. Van Horn replied in the negative, and respondent admonished him to try to get some such reports. This occurrence was likewise reported by Van Horn to Captain Hoagland.
On March 25, 1932, respondent got in touch with Van Horn on the telephone, and arranged to call at his home in half an hour. In due time he arrived at Van Horn's home, and promptly asked if the latter had any police reports for him. There was some further inquiry about the clerk in the fifth district, as well as about the clerks in the fourth and ninth districts, respondent stating that those were good districts for accident cases, and that he would like to get started in them. He told Van Horn that he would not have to be afraid; that his father sold a lot of property to the city for the plaza site; that he was going to have his father qualify as a bondsman; that his nephew or cousin was going to get on the police force; and that he would then have three sources of information on accidents.
It was then that respondent stated that it made no difference in his plans whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leimer v. Hulse
... 178 S.W.2d 335 352 Mo. 451 Walter A. Leimer, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fred B. Hulse, John Grover et al., Defendants in Error No. 38683 Supreme Court ... law in the courts. In re Williams, 233 Mo.App. 1174, ... 128 S.W.2d 1098; In re H ... S ... , 229 ... Mo.App. 44, 69 S.W.2d 325; Rule 35, Supreme Court of ... Missouri. (7) The information states facts showing plaintiff ... ...
-
Curry v. Dahlberg
... 110 S.W.2d 742 341 Mo. 897 Charles C. Curry, Appellant, v. B. G. Dahlberg Supreme Court of Missouri December 9, 1937 ... ... in 112 S.W.2d 345 ... Motion ... overruled ... Burnett, ... Stern & Liberman, Samuel H. Liberman and Robert L ... Aronson for appellant ... (1) The ... theory adopted at the trial will prevail on appeal. Knapp ... ...
-
In re Lacy
...where the court is calling its officer to account for his conduct. In Re Richards, 333 Mo. 907; In Re Sparrow, 90 S.W.2d 461; In Re H-S-, 229 Mo.App. 44. (2) Where an attorney has been tried and acquitted on a charge of criminal offense involving moral turpitude, the same act may be charged......
-
Pearcy v. Page
...201 S.W.2d 403 356 Mo. 192 Claude O. Pearcy, Albert Chandler, John S. Marsalek, James E. Garstang, and William Kohn, Constituting the Bar Committee of the ... In re Lacy, 234 Mo.App. 71, 112 S.W.2d 594; In ... re McNeese, 346 Mo. 425, 142 S.W.2d 33; In re ... H.S., 229 Mo.App. 44, 69 S.W.2d 325; State Bar ... Committee v. Stumbaugh, 123 S.W.2d 51; Leimer v ... Hulse, 352 Mo. 451, 178 S.W.2d 335; In re ... ...