In re Lentz

• Decision Date: 11 June 1900
• Citation: 65 N.J.L. 134,46 A. 761
• Parties: In re LENTZ.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

46 A. 761

65 N.J.L. 134

In re LENTZ.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 11, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On rule to show cause why Carl Lentz should not be disbarred or suspended. Rule discharged.

Argued February term, 1900, before LUDLOW, COLLINS, and DIXON, JJ.

S. H. Grey, Atty. Gen., for the rule. Samuel Kalisch and Cortlandt Parker, contra.

DIXON, J.On October 9, 1899, a rule was entered requiring Carl Lentz, an attorney and counselor of this state, to show cause why he should not be disbarred or suspended from the practice of his profession, because of his unprofessional conduct with respect to certain matters charged in the rule. The attorney general was appointed to prosecute the rule, and it was ordered that proofs should be taken concerning the charges. This rule is now brought for final determination on the evidence submitted.

The first charge is that in January, 1893, Henry E. Muller made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors to Mr. Lentz; that the latter, as assignee, collected $4,607.90 to be distributed among the creditors, out of which allowances were made to the amount of

$2,905.19, thus leaving $1,702.71 for distribution; and that Mr. Lentz, disregarding his duty, retained that sum for a long time, until April, 1897, and fraudulently applied and appropriated the same to his own use. On this charge the proof is that Mr. Lentz collected only about $2,200, that out of this he paid to creditors about $800 before any order for distribution was made, and that he paid the residue within three months after the making of such order. This delay appears to have resulted partly from neglect under the press of other business, and partly from ignorance as to the address of creditors. There is no evidence that it was caused by misappropriation of the fund to his own use, but, on the contrary, the testimony is that he always had the money in bank ready for distribution. This charge is unsupported.

The second charge is that about December 17, 1890, Mr. Lentz, as attorney of Ferdinand Mutter, received $3,032.08, to be applied by him in payment of a mortgage held by Emma S. Pond upon a farm, which Mutter about that time had sold, clear of incumbrances, to St. Peter's Catholic Church, and that Mr. Lentz fraudulently appropriated the money to his own use. Respecting this charge the proof is that Mutter had made such a sale, and received the whole purchase money, agreeing to pay off the mortgage, which bore only '5 per cent. interest; that, as the mortgagee did not then require payment, Mutter gave to Mr. Lentz $5,000, telling him either to invest it, or to retain it as a loan to himself, at 6 per cent. interest; that accordingly Mr. Lentz invested $2,000, and retained $3,000, paying therefor interest at 6 per cent. until 1897, when he repaid the principal. It appears that Mr. Lentz had no knowledge of the terms under which Mutter had sold the farm, and that his only relation to the Pond mortgage was that, by Mutter's directions, he used the interest due from himself to pay the interest due to Miss Pond, paying the remaining 1 per cent to Mutter. This charge also is unfounded.

The third charge, which relates to Mr. Lentz's dealings with the money of Catherine Ost, his client, was formally withdrawn by the attorney general at the argument, because of its groundlessness.

The fourth and fifth charges may be considered together. They allege that Mr. Lentz, as attorney for John Ruckelshaus, about October 16, 1888, received $1,523.57 to be paid to Mary Oehme upon her signing a release Pischarging Charles M. Kase, the administrator of the estate of Hugh H. McCulloch, from all claims against the estate; that he failed to pay the money to Mrs. Oehme, but applied and appropriated the same to his own use; and that about February 15, 1891, he received from...