Rosencranz v. Tidrington, No. 23773.

• Docket Nº: No. 23773.
• Citation: 193 Ind. 472, 141 N.E. 58
• Case Date: October 09, 1923
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

193 Ind. 472
141 N.E. 58

ROSENCRANZ
v.
TIDRINGTON.

No. 23773.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 9, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vanderburgh County; Robt. J. Tracewell, Special Judge.

Ernest G. Tidrington applies for admission to the bar, being opposed by Richard Rosencranz. From a judgment for the applicant, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.

John D. Welman and Edmund L. Craig, both of Evansville, for appellant.

Daniel H. Ortmeyer, of Evansville, for appellee.

EWBANK, J.

Appellee sought admission as an attorney at the bar of the Vanderburgh circuit court, but was opposed by appellant, a citizen of Vanderburgh county. Objections were sustained to different items of evidence offered by appellant for the declared purpose of proving that appellee had done certain unlawful acts, and to questions asked of appellee on cross-examination with the purpose of drawing from him admissions that he had transgressed the law by doing some of those acts and certain other acts. No objection was made on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him. But in sustaining one of the objections the trial judge, in the presence and hearing of the jury, made a statement as follows:

“The court has given this question exceeding care, and has gone over it in every possible phase he could go over it, and the court has ascertained to his satisfaction that at the time the state constitution was adopted, and at the time the statute was passed, submitting the question to a jury, the law was well settled in this country and in England that as an important factor of proof the evidence was confined to general reputation. While it is not requisite to file pleadings in this case, it is proper, and if pleadings had been filed accusing the applicant (appellee) of specific acts, such proof might then be made, if specific acts could be proven. To call upon a man at the trial to refute acts of which no notice had theretofore been given him that such acts were to be proven would be an outrage on justice. Witnesses have been permitted to answer questions about what people say, but not to prove the truth of such statements; it is to prove that the applicant was of good or bad character, and to show that he either had or did not have that information. For all these reasons the court feels perfectly satisfied in his rulings.”

[1] The appellant reserved proper exceptions, and duly presented each of these rulings for review by a motion for a new trial, specifying each of them as a cause for which a new trial was asked. His motion was overruled and he excepted, and has assigned that ruling as error. This sufficiently presents

[141 N.E. 59]

for consideration the question whether or not evidence of specific unlawful and immoral acts of an applicant for admission to the bar is admissible in opposition to his application, not having been charged in any pleading filed...