Morton v. Watson

• Decision Date: 08 November 1900
• Citation: 60 Neb. 672,84 N.W. 91
• Parties: MORTON ET AL. v. WATSON.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

60 Neb. 672

84 N.W. 91

MORTON ET AL.

v.WATSON.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 8, 1900.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where, in a disbarment proceeding instituted against an attorney, the evidence is fairly conflicting, a finding based thereon will not be disturbed on review.

2. Where disbarment proceedings are founded in part upon facts made the basis of a prior pending indictment or information against the same attorney, the court may, where no abuse of discretion is shown, postpone the consideration of the specification in the proceeding to disbar involved in the criminal case until the latter is terminated.

3. In disbarment proceedings, costs cannot be taxed against the informers,--at least, where the alleged misconduct of the attorney was, in good faith, brought to the attention of the court.

Error to district court, Otoe county; Ramsey, Judge.

Information, signed by J. Sterling Morton and others, for the disbarment of John C. Watson. Pleadings dismissed, and petitioners bring error. Reversed.Warren & Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.

Frank Irvine, Sloab & Moran, John V. Morgan, and Mathew Gering, for defendant in error.

NORVAL, C. J.

An information was presented to the district court of Otoe county, charging John C. Watson with unprofessional conduct, involving moral turpitude and a violation of the Criminal Code. The information was signed by J. Sterling Morton and other foremost citizens of the county, was verified by one of their number, and contained various charges against said Watson, accusing him of having been guilty of numerous acts, any of which, if true, it is claimed, would disqualify him from practicing his profession as attorney at law. A committee of members of the bar was appointed by the court to investigate into the truth or falsity of said charges, and make report thereon to the court. Watson appeared, a hearing was had, and the committee made a report finding that certain of said charges had not been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and that one of the specifications it refused to consider, because Watson was at said time under indictment or information, of a criminal nature, for a criminal charge in connection therewith. The lower court approved said report, dismissed the proceeding against Watson, and taxed the costs thereof against those who signed the information. From said ruling and decision they prosecuted error proceedings, alleging that there was error in approving the report of the committee refusing to consider the specification before mentioned, and that the lower court erred in taxing the costs of the proceeding against the informants.

We are of the opinion that no error was committed in approving the report. The evidence bearing upon the charges on which Watson was given a hearing was more or less conflicting,--so much so that we cannot say that there was any abuse...