People ex rel. Deneen v. John
| Decision Date | 22 December 1904 |
| Citation | 212 Ill. 615,72 N.E. 789 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. DENEEN v. JOHN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Information by the people, on the relation of Charles S. Deneen, for the disbarment of Richard John. Rule discharged.
This is an information filed in this court by the state's attorney of Cook county, at the instance of the grievance committee of the Chicago Bar Association, against the respondent, Richard John, an attorney of this court, charging him with having fraudulently converted to his own use the sum of $65, which was collected by him, as attorney at law for Elise Wasserman, upon a promissory note for that amount intrusted to him for collection by her. The evidence shows that the respondent heretofore was indicted for the embezzlement of the said fund by the grand jury of Cook county, and that upon a trial on the merits upon said indictment in the criminal court of said county he was acquitted.
Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty. (John T. Richards and John L. Fogle, of counsel), for relator.
A. L. Flaningham, for respondent.
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the criminal court of Cook county acquitting the respondent of the charge of having embezzled the funds collected by him as an attorney at law for said Elise Wasserman should be held to be a bar to this proceeding. In People v. Comstock, 176 Ill. 192, 52 N. E. 67, leave was sought to file an information in this court for the disbarment of Comstock on the ground that he had induced a witness, by the payment of money, to swear falsely in a suit before that time pending in the circuit court of Fulton county. It appeared from the information that the respondent had been indicted by the grand jury of said county for subornation of perjury for inducing said witness to swear falsely, and that said indictment was then pending in the circuit court of Fulton county for trial, and it was held, the respondent being under indictment for said offense, the proper place to investigate the question of his guilt was in the court where said indictment was pending, and not in this court, and the information was not permitted to be filed. We think the logical conclusion to be drawn from the decision in that case is that a judgment of conviction or acquittal upon the merits upon a trial on an indictment will ordinarily be treated by this court as conclusive of the guilt or innocence of an attorney at law upon a subsequent trial upon information for disbarment for the same offense....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Richards
... ... 369; ... In re Sizer, 300 Mo. 369, 306 Mo. 356; State ex ... rel. v. Mullins, 129 Mo. 231; State ex rel. v ... Harber, 129 Mo. 271 ... R. S. 1929, sec ... 11712; People v. Thomas, 36 Colo. 126; In re ... Smith, 73 Kan. 743; In re Welcome, ... 47; In re Platz, 42 Utah 439, ... 132 P. 390; People ex rel. Deneen v. John, 212 Ill ... 615, 72 N.E. 789; State ex rel. Johnson v ... ...
-
Eaton, In re
...attorney rather than any admission implied in his plea. People ex rel. Johnson v. George, 186 Ill. 122, 57 N.E. 804; People ex rel. Deneen v. John, 212 Ill. 615, 72 N.E. 789; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Meyerovitz, 278 Ill. 356, 116 N.E. 189. Section 2.06 of the American Bar Associa......
-
Browning, In re, 36419
...the Criminal Court of the same offense as charged in the complaint, and that this fact is a complete bar to the charges. (People v. John, 212 Ill. 615 (72 N.E. 789); In re Pontarelli, 393 Ill. 310 (66 N.E.2d 83); In re Patlak, 368 Ill. 547 (15 N.E.2d 309, 116 A.L.R. 627).)' This contention ......
-
In re Needham
...for disbarment. People v. Meyerovitz, 278 Ill. 356, 116 N.E. 189;People v. Gilmore, 214 Ill. 569, 73 N.E. 737,69 L.R.A. 701;People v. John, 212 Ill. 615, 72 N.E. 789;People v. George, 186 Ill. 122, 57 N.E. 804. Counsel for the respondent cites State v. Prendergast, supra, and In re Kaufmann......