In re De Propper

• Citation: 236 Mass. 500,128 N.E. 785
• Parties: In re DE PROPPER.
• Decision Date: 29 November 1920
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

236 Mass. 500

128 N.E. 785

In re DE PROPPER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 29, 1920.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; William Cushing Wait, Judge.

Petition for admission or reinstatement to practice law by Albert H. De Propper. From an order dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Order affirmed.Albert H. De Propper, pro se.

J. Butler Studley, of Boston, for respondents.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for admission or reinstatement to practice law. It was heard by a judge of the superior court and by him denied and ordered dismissed. The petitioner appealed.

[1] A petition for admission to the bar is a proceeding at law and not in equity. Boston Bar Association v. Greenhood, 168 Mass. 169,182 N. E. 568;Boston Bar Association v. Casey, 227 Mass. 46, 51, 116 N. E. 541. An appeal in a case at law brings before this court for examination only errors of law apparent on the record. It does not bring up the evidence for review. Given v. Johnson, 213 Mass. 251, 100 N. E. 369. The material part of the record consists of the petition, answer, and replication, although the latter was unnecessary and might have been stricken from the record (Comstock v. Livingston, 210 Mass. 581, 97 N. E. 106), and the order. No error of law is disclosed on this record. It does not appear that the decision of the judge was founded upon matter of law. It seems to have been based wholly on the facts as he found them and on his inferences therefrom. Cochrane v. Boston, 1 Allen, 480;Knowles v. Bachelder, 106 Mass. 343. A simple finding of fact discloses no error of law and cannot be revised on appeal. It must be accepted as true. This court in actions at law cannot weigh evidence or review findings of fact. Atlantic Maritime Co. v. Gloucester, 228 Mass. 519, 522, 117 N. E. 924, and cases there collected. It is settled that the judge was not bound to make written findings of fact. His duty was fully performed by passing upon questions of law presented and by deciding the case. Lowell v. Bickford, 201 Mass. 543, 545, 88 N. E. 1;Davis v. Boston Elevated Ry., 235 Mass. 482, 494, 495, 126 N. E. 841, and cases there collected.

[7] There is appended to the record what appears to be a report of the trial in the superior court, including the evidence. This is no part of the record and cannot be brought before this court on appeal. Hicks v. Graves, 194 Mass. 589, 80 N. E. 590;Moran v. Murphy, 230 Mass. 5, 118 N. E. 915;Norton v. Musterole Co., 235 Mass. 587, 127 N. E. 431. It may be added, however, that a careful examination has been made of all papers presented. Sedulous care appears to have been exercised throughout that the petitioner have a full and fair hearing. The judge of his own motion saved for the petitioner exceptions to the admission of the record of the Supreme Judicial Court upon an earlier petition for admission to the bar, wherein it was found that the petitioner was not of good moral character, and to the admission of the record of the disbarment of the petitioner in People v. Propper, 220 Ill. 455, 77 N. E. 208. Manifestly this evidence was competent. There is no error prejudicial to the petitioner.

There are irregularities in the preparation of the case for presentation to this court. They are all in the nature of concessions to the petitioner and in his interests and in no degree harmful to him. They concern proper practice, however, and cannot be passed by.

Among the papers presented is a typewritten copy of an order of the superior court authorizing the clerk to permit the petitioner to take the files ‘for the purpose of having them printed in the prosecution of the appeal claimed by him; and further to permit printing by multigraph or other duplicating machine.’ The physical appearance of the papers bears indication that they have been prepared in accordance with this order. Immediately following this is another typewritten sheet in form a certificate signed by the clerk of the superior court, the substance of which is this:

‘The mechanical make-up of the within appeal was not done under the clerk of this court. By order of the court, a copy of which is hereto annexed, the petitioner, De Propper, was allowed to take the files in this case and have them printed under his own direction. The clerk therefore attests the record and declines responsibility for the mechanical make-up of the appeal.’

This order and certificate were irregular and unwarranted by law. It is provided in R. L. c. 157, which relates to the superior court, by section 21, that

‘The clerk shall, at the expense of the appellant or excepting party, or of the plaintiff upon a case reserved or...