Walker v. Commonwealth
| Citation | 71 Ky. 86 |
| Parties | Walker v. Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1871 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
GREEN, GILL & JOSEPH, For Appellant.
JOHN RODMAN, Attorney-General, F. HAGAN, Pros. Att'y Lou. City Court, For Appellee.
On the 10th of April, 1871, the judge of the City Court of Louisville, the court then sitting, stated that he observed M. A. Walker, a practicing attorney of the court, present; that on the preceding Saturday he, the judge, was in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, and heard the judge of said court make an order to strike the name of said Walker from the roll of attorneys of said court for dishonorable and corrupt conduct; and thereupon he, suo motu, ordered that a rule issue against M. A. Walker, returnable forthwith, to show cause, if any he could, why his name should not be stricken from the roll as a practicing attorney of that court "for dishonorable and corrupt conduct."
The rule was issued and served on Walker immediately thereafter; whereupon he appeared in court with his counsel, and after his motion for a postponement of his case for a few days to enable him to prepare his defense had been overruled, he filed an affidavit, in which he stated that when the judge ordered the rule to go, one of his attorneys was present and moved the court to make it returnable on the following Thursday or Friday (that being Monday); the motion was overruled, and that he was summoned to answer forthwith. He furthermore stated that the judge of said court for more than two years last past had been hostile to him, and during all that time had been his bitter enemy; that on that morning, when his attorney asked for an extension of time for the return of the rule against him, he replied that he had heard the testimony against Walker, that he believed he was guilty, and ought to be disbarred immediately.
He also stated that he could not have a fair and impartial trial before the judge of said court, and asked that some impartial and intelligent attorney of said court might be selected to try the case.
Upon the filing of this affidavit the judge of the court retired from the bench, and W. L. Jackson, an attorney of said court, was selected as special judge to preside on the trial of said cause, and, having taken the oath prescribed by law, presided on the trial. After he took his seat the prosecuting attorney moved the court to be permitted to amend the rule against appellant by inserting the following specification: "That the said Walker had been guilty of dishonorable and corrupt conduct in this, that he had attempted to obtain property of value from Wm. O'Donnell, confined in the jail of Jefferson County, Ky., by presenting to him a false and forged petition, which he (Walker) represented to be genuine and to have been signed by the judge, commonwealth's attorney, and jury on the trial of O'Donnell." The motion was sustained by the court, and the rule was thus amended, to which appellant excepted.
In response to the rule appellant denied that he drew the "pretended" petition exhibited against him, or that it was in his handwriting; denied that he procured the same to be written, or that he ever presented it to O'Donnell or to any one else; and stated that he never saw the paper until it was produced in the circuit court on Saturday preceding the day on which the rule was made against him, and that he had never attempted to obtain property of any kind from said O'Donnell by dishonorable means.
The response was filed the day after the rule was ordered, to which time the trial had been postponed; and on filing it appellant moved for a continuance, which was overruled. He then moved the court that the witnesses for both parties should be separated, which was also overruled. And after the evidence was heard by the court, a jury having been refused appellant, judgment was rendered making the rule absolute against him, and ordering his name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys of that court. And for a reversal of that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
From the bill of exceptions it appears that a paper was produced on the trial by appellee purporting to be a petition, signed by the jury who convicted O'Donnell, to the governor to pardon him, on the grounds that the coat, for the stealing of which he was convicted, was of less value than four dollars, and that he was so much intoxicated at the time he took it as not to know what he was doing. Upon said paper were also recommendations to the governor for the pardon of O'Donnell purporting to have been signed by the judge who presided on his trial and the attorney who prosecuted him, respectively; and it was then proved by one Clark that a few days before the trial appellant called at the jail where O'Donnell was confined with a paper in is hand, which he represented as a petition to the governor for his pardon, signed by the jurors, judge, and commonwealth's attorney, which he read to O'Donnell, and told him if he would give him his watch appellant would send the petition with two dollars to the assistant secretary of state and get him pardoned; but that O'Donnell refused to give him the watch until the pardon came. The paper before described was then shown to the witness, and he stated he believed it was the same paper read by appellant to O'Donnell; but said he did not know whether appellant said the jury had signed it or he could get them to sign it. Witness was in the jail, saw the paper through a window and heard it read, but did not have it in his hand.
H. C. Thomas was next introduced as a witness by appellee, and when said paper was handed to him stated that on the Thursday before, about five o'clock of the afternoon, J. Speed Peay, Robert Warren, William Baird, and himself went to Worley's saloon, on the west side of Sixth Street, and took a drink. When they came out he picked up the paper. It was lying on the pavement near the saloon door. That Peay snatched it out of his hand; and William Baird said to Peay: And the paper was handed to him.
Robert F. Baird was then called by appellee, and he stated that he had seen the paper. It was handed to him by Wm. G. Baird. He read it; then consulted Col. Lee and Judge Bruce. He recognized the handwriting as Walker's. He had known Walker twelve or fourteen years; knew him when he was a liquor merchant, and since as a lawyer. Had seen him write only a few times. The paper before him was in his handwriting. Knew it was his handwriting; knew it as he knew his face. The signatures to it, purporting to be Judge Bruce's and Col. Lee's, the district attorney, are not in their handwriting; that he knew their handwriting; that the petition and signatures thereto were written by Walker, but not in his natural hand. On cross-examination he said he did not recollect of having more than one fight with appellant; that he had no recollection of having said he would have him disbarred, nor of threatening to kill him. If he ever made such a threat, he was so drunk he did not know what he said or did; but he said he did not like defendant because he stole away his client, O'Donnell, whom Judge Price appointed him to defend on the examining trial. That appellant found out that O'Donnell had a silver watch worth twenty-five dollars, which he got for defending him on the final trial; and he, the witness, got nothing for defending him on the examining trial.
R. E. Warren was examined by appellee, and proved the same, in substance, that H. C. Thomas proved, and in addition he said that Wm. Baird said, when Thomas picked up the paper, give it to him; he had been looking for that paper all day; it was worth five hundred dollars to him. And as they were returning from the saloon they saw Walker going along "Court Place."
W. G. Baird, being sworn, stated he went with Peay, Thomas, and Warren on the evening named to Worley's saloon; took a drink; and when they came out they saw a paper lying on the pavement. Thomas picked it up; Peay snatched it; he (the witness) saw the handwriting, and asked for it, and Peay gave it to him. On being cross-examined, he said his uncle, Robert F. Baird, told him there was such a paper in existence, and he had been looking for it all day. He was told that the petition had been presented there in the morning. If he said he would give five hundred dollars for the paper, he spoke it jocularly; and he had no recollection...
To continue reading
Request your trial