In re McNeese

• Decision Date: 02 July 1940
• Docket Number: No. 35893.,35893.
• Citation: 142 S.W.2d 33
• Parties: In re Disbarment Proceedings Against CHARLES A. McNEESE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

142 S.W.2d 33

In re Disbarment Proceedings Against CHARLES A. McNEESE.

No. 35893.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, July 2, 1940.

Disbarment.

JUDGMENT ORDERED DISBARRING McNEESE FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE.

John T. Martin and E.L. Redman for informants.

(1) This action is an inquiry in the nature of an investigation by the court to determine whether or not respondent has committed any offense against the laws of the State of Missouri and the United States of America, which amounts to a crime involving acts done by him contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals of such character that for the protection of the public and those charged with the administration of justice, he should be no longer entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of attorney. Rules 35, 36, Mo. Sup. Ct.; In re Richards, 333 Mo. 907, 63 S.W. (2d) 676; In re Sparrow, 90 S.W. (2d) 404; In re Lacy, 112 S.W. (2d) 604; In re h____ s____, 69 S.W. (2d) 325, l.c. 327; Rule 35, Sec. 47, Mo. Sup. Ct. (2) Conviction of a violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act is a felony requiring disbarment and the record of conviction is conclusive evidence on this point. Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C.A., secs. 1047 (b), 1383, pp. 294, 565; Commonwealth v. Porter, 46 S.W. (2d) 1096; Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 27 L. Ed. 552, 2 Sup. Ct. 569; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Assn. v. Meyerovitz, 287 Ill. 356, 116 N.E. 189. (3) Respondent's violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act was a crime involving moral turpitude and respondent's commission thereof was a violation of his oath and duty as an attorney at law and requires his disbarment. State v. Mollosky, 230 N.W. 735, 71 A.L.R. 190; Barbot v. United States, 273 Fed. 919; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 344; United States v. Parsons, 261 Fed. 223; Spear v. State, 109 S.W. (2d) 1150; Duvall v. Board of Medical Examiners, 66 Pac. (2d) 1026; In re Shepard, 170 Pac. 442, 35 Cal. App. 492; White v. Andrews, 197 Pac. 564, 70 Colo. 50; In re Wallace, 323 Mo. 203, 19 S.W. (2d) 625; In re Williams, 128 S.W. (2d) 1105; In re Fenn, 128 S.W. (2d) 669.

GANTT, J.

Original action in disbarment. On information filed by the Bar Committee charging McNeese, an attorney at law, with conduct involving moral turpitude, Hon. Arch B. Davis of the Chillicothe Bar was appointed special commissioner. He performed his duties as such by reporting his finding of facts and conclusions of law. The commissioner recommended the disbarment of McNeese.

Exceptions to the report were filed by McNeese. The exceptions may be reduced to a contention that said conduct of McNeese did not involve moral turpitude.

[1] In this court McNeese filed no brief. Furthermore, we were not favored with oral arguments on the exceptions to the report. In this situation the case was taken as submitted on informant's brief and the exceptions to the report of the commissioner. The material facts follow:

[2] Respondent McNeese was indicted by a Federal grand jury. for the western division of the western district of Missouri. He was charged "with having unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and feloniously sold to one F.W. Fault 242 grains of Morphine hydrochloride, a derivative of opium not from the original package stamped and not in the original stamped package, upon which the tax had not been paid, as required by law."

On trial to a jury in the Federal court,...