In re Weed

• Decision Date: 02 June 1903
• Citation: 72 P. 653,28 Mont. 264
• Parties: In re WEED
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

72 P. 653

28 Mont. 264

In re WEED

Supreme Court of Montana

June 2, 1903

Original proceeding for the reinstatement of Elbert D. Weed as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court. Reinstatement refused.

Jas Donovan, Atty. Gen., presented petition to court.

MILBURN J.

This matter is before us on the petition of Elbert D. Weed, and of others in his behalf, for his reinstatement as a member of the bar of this court. The court ordered on May 26, 1902 that Mr. Weed be suspended from his office of attorney and counselor and deprived of the right to practice as such in the courts of Montana until the 26th day of May, 1904, at the expiration of which time he might, under the terms of the order, upon proper petition, supported by satisfactory evidence of good conduct meantime, be restored to the privileges of an attorney and counselor. Many persons join in praying that the petition of the applicant be granted. Many of these are lawyers of high standing, and others are persons of importance and prominence in the public service and in private life. It will not serve any useful purpose to state herein at length the reasons why Mr. Weed was subjected to discipline. It will be sufficient to refer those who should know them to the opinions in In re Weed, 26 Mont 241, 507, 67 P. 308, 68 P. 1115. Referring to In re Newton, 70 P. 982, 27 Mont. 182, we find that a disbarred attorney was restored to the office of attorney and counselor upon it having been made to appear satisfactorily to the court that the petitioner had, "since the order of disbarment, *** lived an upright, honorable life; that in the estimation of his fellow citizens in the community in which he resides, and also of reputable members of the bar of this state, he is a fit person to be permitted to practice law in the state, and that he expresses the utmost contrition for his said offense." It is necessary that the applicant show much more than appears in the petition before us. He states that the order of suspension was made "by reason of a petition *** and evidence given in support thereof by one Theodore Mayer, showing that the petitioner herein was indebted to said Mayer in a certain sum of money." Reading the opinion (26 Mont. 507, 68 P. 1115) any one will see that the court did not punish Mr. Weed for being indebted to Mr. Mayer. There has not been any such precedent ever established by this court, or by any other, so far as we are advised. If...