In re Van Ruschen

• Decision Date: 20 January 1917
• Docket Number: 3917
• Citation: 38 S.D. 254,160 N.W. 1006
• Parties: IN RE H. VAN RUSCHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

38 S.D. 254

160 N.W. 1006

IN RE H. VAN RUSCHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW. South Dakota Supreme Court Original Proceedings #3917—Judgment of disbarment C. C. Caldwell, Attorney General Attorney for the State. Spongier & Haney, Alan Bogue, Jr. Attorneys for Defendant. Opinion filed January 20, 1917

McCOY, J.

In this proceeding in disbarment the accused attorney, among other things, was charged with having fraudulently and criminally, by false representations, induced one Tetta Lammers, a mortgagee, to whom accused, as mortgagor, owed money secured by a real estate mortgage upon 39 town lots, to execute a certain release upon the whole of said 39 lots, when in truth and in fact she intended to execute and thought she was executing a release upon only three of said lots. It also appears that in the circuit court of Turner county accused was informed against by the state's attorney for having feloniously and willfully secured, by false pretenses and representations, the signature of said Tetta Lammers to said release of 39 lots; and that upon the trial of said action before a jury the said accused was found guilty as charged in said information; and that an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court from said judgment of conviction, and which appeal resulted in the affirmance of said judgment. State v. Van Ruschen, 160 N.W. 811. Based upon said judgment of conviction the referee, to whom this cause was referred for findings of fact and conclusions of law, has filed report that the conduct of the accused in relation to the obtaining of said release from Mrs. Lammers was unlawful, wrongful, and fraudulent.

The accused was also charged in this proceeding with wrongfully and fraudulently having procured from Josua Hofer and wife the sum of $1,600 for which he has failed to account to them. From the findings, of the referee it appears that Mrs. Hofer claimed some interest in the estate of her deceased father, then being probated, and that the accused was employed to represent her interest and was paid for his services. Upon the final distribution of said estate Mrs. Hofer became entitled to receive $1,600 then in the hands of the administrator. Mrs. Hofer was dissatisfied with said amount, claiming that she was entitled to a portion of her father's real estate. The accused thereafter appeared at the country residence of the Hofers and procured their signatures to a contract authorizing him to work for them in the interest of securing such...