People ex rel. Rogers v. Green

Citation13 P. 514, 9 Colo. 506
Case DateFebruary 18, 1887
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

13 P. 514

9 Colo. 506

PEOPLE ex rel. ROGERS and others
v.

GREEN and another. (First Case.)

PEOPLE ex rel. NEWTON
v.
ROGERS and others. (Second Case.)

Supreme Court of Colorado

February 18, 1887


Disbarment proceedings. On rehearing.

On the sixteenth of June, 1886, Lucius P. Marsh and Merrick A. Rogers filed in this court their petition for a rule upon Thomas A. Green and Horace B. Johnson to show cause why they should not be disbarred. Their petition alleges that on the seventeenth day of May, A. D. 1886, the said Green and Johnson 'filed, and procured and caused to be filed, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the United States within and for the district and state of Colorado, sitting at Denver, a certain bill or complaint in chancery, wherein Almon P. Newton and Isabel J. Newton, his wife, are complainants, and Edward F. Lamb, and Vira Lamb, J. Jay Joslin, and the Arapahoe Cattle & Land Company are defendants, which said bill of complaint is signed by the said Thomas A. Green and the said Horace B. Johnson, by their own proper hands, as the said complainants' solicitors therein; * * * that in and by the said bill of complaint the said Thomas A. Green and the said Horace B. Johnson falsely, wickedly, and maliciously charge and allege that your petitioner Lucius P. Marsh bribed your petitioner Merrick A. Rogers, as judge as aforesaid of the said superior court, to render a certain judgment in the said bill of complaint mentioned, and that your petitioner Merrick A. Rogers, as judge as aforesaid, accepted and received such bribe, and that he, your petitioner Merrick A. Rogers, was thereby bribed and corrupted, which said false, wicked, and malicious charges of bribery and corruption your petitioners humbly crave the leave of this honorable court that they, your petitioners, be not required to more specifically and certainly set out and charge herein, but that, for greater certainty in this behalf, your petitioners have the permission of this honorable court to refer to the said bill of complaint; * * * that the said Thomas A. Green and the said Horace B. Johnson, in and by the said bill of complaint, further charge and allege that your petitioner Lucius P. Marsh, on the next day after the rendition of the said judgment, in a discourse which your petitioner Lucius P. Marsh is alleged to have had with an unnamed non-resident of the said state of Colorado, stated and told to said nonresident that he, the said non-resident, had no idea how cheap judges could be bought and bribed in Colorado; that your petitioner Lucius P. Marsh urged him, the said non-resident, to let him, the said Lucius P. Marsh, commence a certain suit then contemplated by the said non-resident in a state court, where he could bribe a judge who would do anything at all he, the said Lucius P. Marsh, wanted him, the said judge, to do; that, in and by the said bill of complaint, the said Thomas A. Green and the said Horace B. Johnson further allege that the said Lucius P. Marsh, a day or two thereafter, attempted to explain said matter to the said non-resident, and told him, the said non-resident, that he, to said Lucius P. Marsh, did not mean judges in Colorado outside of Denver, but that he, the said Lucius P. Marsh, meant judges in Denver, and meant the judge of the superior court of Denver, and that the said Lucius P. Marsh gave said non-resident to distinctly understand that he, the said Lucius P. Marsh, could bribe said judge of said superior court very cheaply, and had done so in the said suit in said bill of complaint mentioned and described.'

The bill filed in the circuit court, which is made a part of the petition of the relators, seeks relief touching an alleged fraud perpetrated by Joslin and Lamb upon the complainants. This alleged fraud had already been the subject-matter of litigation in the superior court before Judge Rogers, who had rendered a decision therein in favor of the defendant Joslin. Anticipating that this judgment in the superior court would be pleaded as a former adjudication in bar of the action in the circuit court, the complainants seek to impeach it in their bill by allegations that it was obtained by bribery and fraud. The allegations of the bill upon this point are as follows:

'Your oratrix further shows to this honorable court that the only shadow or pretense of defense that said Joslin or said Lamb have to this suit is a certain fraudulent and corrupt judgment obtained by said Joslin against your oratrix in the superior court of the city of Denver on or about the seventh day of April, 1886. That said action was commenced in said court by your oratrix against the said defendant J Jay Joslin alone for damages for the breach of warranty in regard to the price and quality of said dry goods above mentioned, and was purely a technical legal action, as your oratrix is informed and believes, and not against the other defendants to this bill, and that said court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the suit. That when said action came on for trial, the whole matter of both law and fact was submitted to the judge of said court for trial, and no jury demanded by either party. That upon said trial your oratrix offered evidence to prove all of the facts substantially as alleged above in this bill in regard to the warranty of said goods, and that said Joslin could not successfully contradict or deny any of the substantial facts connected with said implied or expressed warranty as alleged above, but was compelled to admit under oath, that he had put up said goods himself from the old, faded, worthless goods of his said store in Denver, and had made out said false invoices, and had placed the prices on the same at the highest real price of said goods when the same were fresh and in fashion, and had secretly shipped said goods, after he had boxed up the same, to said public warehouse in the city of Denver, and had furnished said Lamb with said invoices and said goods to enable him to obtain your oratrix's property in the manner aforesaid; and, after said Joslin was compelled to admit, under oath, that the goods mentioned in said invoices were only worth 33 1/3 per cent. of the said invoice prices, and that he had intentionally made out said false and and fraudulent invoices, and put up and stored said goods in said public warehouse to accomplish the obtaining of the title to your oratrix's said large and valuable ranch and real estate, the same being situated, as aforesaid, only about six miles east of Denver, and well improved, and all under the Highline ditch, and that he had sold the same and realized $14,000 in money for it, in addition to the $6,000 incumbrances, and in all $20,000 cash, or its full equivalent; and, after your oratrix had introduced in evidence the above written memorandum prepared by Joslin's own attorney, and wholly in his interest, and in which it is confessed in writing, and was so confessed and stated at the time they obtained said deed from your oratrix, and to induce your oratrix to execute and deliver said deed, that your oratrix was to have $9,000 in money, and when it was agreed and understood by all that said dry goods were to be the same as money, and equivalent to $9,000 in money; and notwithstanding all of these admissions, confessions, and facts were fully presented to the judge of said court, and that Joslin admitted he had only delivered in all $3,000 worth of goods to your oratrix, instead of $9,000, and had wronged your oratrix, as above stated, out of $6,000,--that the judge of said court, to the utter astonishment of your oratrix and her attorneys, and all persons present, except said Joslin and his attorneys, cut off the whole argument of the attorneys in said case except a brief opening, and, in an afterthought, and frantic manner, more like a maniac than a cool, deliberate, and impartial judge, declared that, in his view of said case, the same was an afterthought, and that no warranty or cause of action was made out against Joslin for breach of warranty, either express or implied, and that he would find for the defendant; and that the only reason and pitiful excuse offered by the said judge was that if there had been anything wrong about said transaction, that Mrs. Newton, your oratrix, would have rushed immediately to a lawyer, and commenced a suit against said Lamb, who was shown to be wholly insolvent, or against said Lamb and his wife, to recover back said real estate, when it was shown by records and admitted that it was only eleven days from the day your oratrix deeded said property to Vira Lamb until she conveyed the same to Joslin, who was not then known in said transaction at all to your oratrix; and when it was admitted that your oratrix executed said deed late on a Saturday evening, and that said goods were not delivered to her until the first of the following week, and it was also shown in evidence that at that time your oratrix had a very sick child and a sick husband, and that during the very few days from the delivery of said goods until said Vira L. Lamb had conveyed said ranch to said Joslin, in pursuance of said conspiracy to defraud your oratrix out of the same, your oratrix only had time to make a hasty and imperfect examination of said goods, and take care of her sick family, and had no time to run to a lawyer to commence lawsuits against parties who were wholly insolvent and worthless, or to commence a suit to recover back her property when she supposed it had passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser in good faith, and was lost to your oratrix forever.
'Your oratrix states, on information and belief, that the statutes of limitation of this state give her three years in which to commence a suit for relief against said fraud instead of eleven days, and six years in which to commence action
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 24 Mayo 1927
    ...and intimidate this court, and to hold the same up to public ridicule and contempt. U.S. v. Craig, 226 F. 229; People v. Green (Colo.) 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514. ¶88 In Re Hanson (Kan.) 99 Kan. 23, 160 P. 1141, it was said:"The matter thus far poured into the brief is irrelevant and grossly sc......
  • In Re Charles A. Thatcher, 11650
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 25 Junio 1909
    ...v. State, 22 Ark. 149; State v. Chapman, 11 Ohio 430; People, ex rel. Elliott v. Green, 7 Colo. 237; People, ex rel. Rogers v. Green, 9 Colo. 506; Sanborn v. Kimball, 64 Me. 140; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U. S.), 335; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270; Smith's Appeal, 179 Pa. 14; People, ex ......
  • Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Freemon
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 9 Junio 1961
    ...to the highest, vehicles of malicious scandal and libel of any member of the bar.' After quoting from People ex rel. Rogers v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514; and citing In re Ray S. Reid, 45 App.D.C. 240, L.R.A.1916F, 394 and In re Fred S. Macy, 109 Kan. 1, 196 P. 1095, 14 A.L.R. 848, our S......
  • In re Egan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 1 Diciembre 1909
    ...1071; State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S.W. 79, 99 Am.St.Rep. 624; State v. McClaugherty, 33 W. Va. 250, 10 S.E. 407; People v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 Pac. 514. The great weight of authority, however, seems to be to the contrary. State v. Sweetland, 3 S.D. 503, 54 N.W. 415; State Board v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 24 Mayo 1927
    ...and intimidate this court, and to hold the same up to public ridicule and contempt. U.S. v. Craig, 226 F. 229; People v. Green (Colo.) 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514. ¶88 In Re Hanson (Kan.) 99 Kan. 23, 160 P. 1141, it was said:"The matter thus far poured into the brief is irrelevant and grossly sc......
  • In Re Charles A. Thatcher, 11650
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 25 Junio 1909
    ...v. State, 22 Ark. 149; State v. Chapman, 11 Ohio 430; People, ex rel. Elliott v. Green, 7 Colo. 237; People, ex rel. Rogers v. Green, 9 Colo. 506; Sanborn v. Kimball, 64 Me. 140; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U. S.), 335; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270; Smith's Appeal, 179 Pa. 14; People, ex ......
  • Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Freemon
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 9 Junio 1961
    ...to the highest, vehicles of malicious scandal and libel of any member of the bar.' After quoting from People ex rel. Rogers v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514; and citing In re Ray S. Reid, 45 App.D.C. 240, L.R.A.1916F, 394 and In re Fred S. Macy, 109 Kan. 1, 196 P. 1095, 14 A.L.R. 848, our S......
  • In re Egan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 1 Diciembre 1909
    ...1071; State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S.W. 79, 99 Am.St.Rep. 624; State v. McClaugherty, 33 W. Va. 250, 10 S.E. 407; People v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 Pac. 514. The great weight of authority, however, seems to be to the contrary. State v. Sweetland, 3 S.D. 503, 54 N.W. 415; State Board v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT