In re Stolen

• Decision Date: 24 June 1927
• Citation: 193 Wis. 602,214 N.W. 379
• Parties: IN RE STOLEN.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

193 Wis. 602

214 N.W. 379

IN RE STOLEN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 20, 1927.

Dissenting Opinion June 24, 1927.

Original petition for disbarment of Ole A. Stolen. Petition granted, with directions.--[By Editorial Staff.]

The officers of the Dane County Bar Association presented to this court a document in the nature of an information relative to certain conduct of Ole A. Stolen, an attorney of this court, in his official capacity as judge of the superior court for Dane county. Upon considering the information the court concluded that the charges therein contained cast sufficient doubt upon the right of said Ole A. Stolen to continue as a member of the bar of this court to merit further consideration. H. M. Thomas, Esq., a member of the Dane county bar, was appointed by the court to investigate the matter set forth in the information, and to institute such further proceedings before the court looking to the disbarment of said Ole A. Stolen as such investigation might seem to warrant.

In due course a formal petition was duly prepared, setting forth facts to be hereinafter referred to, signed by the officers of said Dane county bar, and by said Thomas as prosecuting attorney, praying that this court exercise its original jurisdiction, and that an order to show cause be issued out of said court requiring the said Ole A. Stolen to show cause why he should not be disbarred from practice. Such order to show cause was duly issued and served, in response to which the said Ole A. Stolen moved that the complaint filed against him be dismissed, for the reason that the alleged acts complained of, as set forth in said complaint, if committed by the said Ole A. Stolen, were committed in his capacity as judge of the superior court of Dane county, Wis., a court of record; that this court is without jurisdiction to try and determine the disbarment proceeding herein for the reason that such proceeding may result in the removal from office of a judge of a court of record who must be a member of the bar, and that the provision for removal from office of judges of the several courts of record as provided in the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin is exclusive. This motion was denied by the court, without an opinion, and the said Ole A. Stolen was ordered to make answer to the allegations of the petition.

In due course said Stolen filed his answer, by which various issues of fact were raised. Thereupon this court appointed the Hon. A. G. Zimmermann, circuit judge for the Ninth judicial district, to take testimony upon the issues thus raised and report the same to this court with all convenient speed. In due course, the referee reported to this court the testimony taken pursuant to such appointment, from which it appears that in April, 1922, the respondent was elected judge of the superior court for Dane county, qualified as such, and was re-elected to the same position in 1926; that said court is a court exercising criminal jurisdiction throughout Dane county; that there is a section of the city of Madison popularly and variously known as “Little Italy,” “Green Bush,” and “The Bush,” largely settled by Italians, notorious for its bootlegging activities and other acts of lawlessness, six murders and two other shooting affrays having occurred therein during the year 1924, most of which are supposed to have been the result of feuds between rival gangs of bootleggers.

During the year 1923 the said respondent had entered upon the construction of a dwelling, the cost of the construction of which ran beyond his estimates, and along about January 1, 1924, he found himself in financial extremities. There was a prominent Italian living in “The Bush” by the name of Anton Navarro. He was a leader among the Italians, and almost invariably appeared in court with them, both state and federal, when they were charged with crime, acted as their adviser, and arranged bail for them. Frequently he acted as interpreter. Respondent went to Navarro, stated his financial necessities, and asked for a loan. Navarro said he thought one LaBruzzo might make him a loan. Within a day or two Navarro arranged a meeting between respondent and LaBruzzo, and LaBruzzo loaned him $500 upon his unsecured promissory note. LaBruzzo was a notorious bootlegger. He so testified.

On August 5, 1922, respondent, as judge of the superior court for Dane county, conducted a preliminary examination in that court in a criminal action against LaBruzzo, wherein he was charged with violating the liquor laws, and after hearing the evidence respondent bound LaBruzzo over for trial, Anton Navarro furnishing LaBruzzo's bond. On the 16th day of December, 1922, respondent, as such judge, signed and issued a search warrant against LaBruzzo. The record shows that LaBruzzo had been in court upon criminal charges seven times in the three years preceding the loan and three times after said loan.

Some time prior to June, 1924, respondent, as judge of the superior court, at the request of LaBruzzo, had committed the son of LaBruzzo, a juvenile offender, to a reformatory institution at Wauwatosa until the further order of the court. In June, 1924, LaBruzzo applied to the respondent for an order releasing the boy from the institution. By arrangement, respondent and his wife accompanied LaBruzzo and his wife to the institution, and respondent made an investigation, as a result of which he made and signed an order on the spot releasing the boy, and they took the boy home with them. Some criticism is made in the briefs of the fact that respondent made a court order while at the institution at Wauwatosa, but we give that matter no further consideration.

A few days later, and on the 2d day of July, 1924, respondent effected an additional loan of $600 from LaBruzzo. At this time he gave a note for $1,150 to cover the amount of the two loans. It will be noted that the amount of the two loans was $1,100 only. The reason for giving this note for $1,150 is not explained. Respondent testifies that when he asked LaBruzzo for the second loan LaBruzzo told him he was not sure he could make the loan, and referred him to his cousin, Nick Randazzo, and that he wrote the name of Nick Randazzo in a book. LaBruzzo maintains he never mentioned Randazzo to the respondent.

On December 18, 1924, the respondent borrowed $500 from Nick Randazzo, giving his note therefor payable in six months from date. The proceedings leading up to this loan were as follows: Respondent referred to the address of Randazzo given to him by LaBruzzo. He walked down Regent street and located Randazzo's house. He saw a man outside and asked him if his name was Randazzo, and found out that it was. Randazzo called him Judge. After this introduction,respondent advised Randazzo that LaBruzzo had told him Randazzo might have money to loan, and thereupon requested a loan of $500, to which Randazzo replied, “I will let you know.” A few days later Randazzo called respondent by telephone, saying that he would come to his house with the money. Nothing was said about security, or the length of time the loan was to run. A day or two later Randazzo delivered the money and the respondent gave him his note. Respondent testified that when he was preparing the note he asked Randazzo as to the rate of interest, and received the reply, “O, it doesn't make any difference about interest.”

On August 15, 1924, Randazzo had appeared before the respondent on a liquor charge, and upon preliminary examination conducted by respondent, Randazzo was bound over to appear at the circuit court. Randazzo admitted to police officers that he was a bootlegger, boasted that the officers could not catch him, and, in fact, they never did. The court records, however, show that on the 27th day of December, 1922, a search warrant was issued out of the superior court for Dane county, signed by the respondent, and returned “nothing found”; that on March 5, 1925, another search warrant was issued, the return to which shows that some wine, but no distilled spirits, was found; and on August 15, 1924, he was bound over for trial by Judge Stolen.

Respondent next negotiated a loan from one Menderino, two or three weeks after the Randazzo loan was effected. Prior to applying to Menderino for a loan the respondent had met him but once; that was in front of Randazzo's house shortly after Randazzo loaned respondent the money. The conversation at this time related to Menderino's war record and had no reference to loans. Menderino lived in the same block with Randazzo, and respondent saw him one day as he passed along Regent street, and asked Menderino for a loan. He asked Menderino if he had money to loan, and the latter replied that he might have, and would let him know. Respondent asked for $800. No mention was made of interest or security. A day or two later Menderino called the respondent and, by arrangement, they met at the latter's house, whereupon Menderino produced either $800 or $850 in money and respondent gave him his note. No questions were asked about respondent's financial condition or ability to pay, and respondent made no inquiries as to Menderino's business or occupation and claims to have known nothing about it. Respondent testified that he solicited this loan two or three weeks or perhaps a month after he obtained the loan from Randazzo. The record shows that on December 26, 1924, eight days after he borrowed the money from Randazzo, Menderino appeared before respondent as judge of the superior court charged with a violation of the Prohibition Law (St. 1925, § 165.01), and the case was afterwards dismissed for lack of evidence.

In 1925 both LaBruzzo and Menderino were brought before respondent charged with violations of the Prohibition Law. Respondent conducted a preliminary examination in the LaBruzzo case and bound him over for trial in the circuit court. Menderino pleaded guilty and was fined $400. LaBruzzo was convicted in the circuit court and...