People Ex Rel.Orrin Miller v. Rufus J. Harvey. the Same Ex Rel. Francis Burnap v. Orrin Miller.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel.ORRIN MILLERv.RUFUS J. HARVEY.THE SAME ex rel. FRANCIS BURNAPv.ORRIN MILLER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
RULES were entered in this court against Rufus J. Harvey and Orrin Miller, attorneys at law, to show cause why their names should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys. The facts in relation to the application are presented in the opinion of the court.
Mr. D. P. JONES, State's attorney, for the relators.
On the eighth day of May, 1863, it being the April Term of this court, on the affidavit of Orrin Miller, a rule was entered against Rufus J. Harvey, an attorney of this court, requiring him to show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys, for the reasons stated in the affidavit. At the same term of this court Francis Burnap moved, on his affidavit, for a like rule against Miller. Returns were made to both rules, consisting of various affidavits, presenting much contrariety of testimony. The charges against each of these attorneys were malpractice. That against Harvey consisting in abstracting from the court-room, in the progress of a cause in which he was the attorney, a certain instruction which the court had refused to give the jury on his application, and afterward denying that he had taken it. That against Miller was for abstracting a deposition from the files of the court, which Burnap had caused to be taken on his behalf in a case in the Circuit Court of Winnebago county, in the suit of Cook for the use of Miller, against him, Burnap. Harvey was the law partner of Burnap at this time. The charges are denied on oath, and no sufficient evidence aliunde is produced to prove them. There is, however, enough shown to satisfy us that neither of the parties charged has conducted himself with that scrupulous regard to propriety in his profession, its honorable nature requires of all engaged in it. They appear to be, though practicing at the same bar, at enmity with each other, and which has become implacable, and each seeks to deprive the other of the privileges attached to his enrollment as a member of the bar of this court. When a clear case is made out against an attorney of this court of malpractice, or of conduct unbecoming an attorney and a gentleman, we will not be slow to visit upon him the heaviest punishment we can inflict. But the case must be clear, and free from doubt, not only as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Charles A. Thatcher
...Finley, 30 Fla. 326; 18 L.R.A. 401; State v. Young, 30 Fla. 85; In re Manheim, 99 N.Y.S. 87; Zachary v. State, 43 Southern, 925; People v. Harvey, 41 Ill. 277; Rosewater v. State, 47 630. The record of a candidate running for re-election as judge is open for public discussion by members of ......
-
In re Brown
... ... afterwards, on the same day, in his (Corlett's) office, ... states the ... State, 22 Ark. 149; ... People v. Green, 7 Colo. 237, 244, 3 P. 65; Ex parte ... People v ... Harvey, 41 Ill. 277. Notice of grounds of complaint and ... ...
-
In re Info. To Discipline Certain Attorneys of the Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
...149, 156 N. E. 328;People v. Baker, 311 Ill. 66, 142 N. E. 554, 31 A. L. R. 737;People v. Hickman, 294 Ill. 471, 128 N. E. 484;People v. Harvey, 41 Ill. 277); and urge that, as there can be no motive to violate a standard when no standard has been set up, no punishment of the respondents ca......
-
In re Novo
...v. Kerker, 315 Ill. 572, 146 N. 439; In re Wellcome, 23 Mont. 450, 59 P. 445; People v. Matthews, 217 Ill. 94, 75 N.E. 444; People v. Harvey, 41 Ill. 277; People v. Barker, 56 Ill. People v. McCaskrin, 325 Ill. 149, 156 N.E. 328; People v. Lotterman, 353 Ill. 399, 187 N.E. 424; People v. Ha......