Zachary v. State

• Decision Date: 30 April 1907
• Citation: 53 Fla. 94,43 So. 925
• Parties: ZACHARY v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

43 So. 925

53 Fla. 94

ZACHARY v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

April 30, 1907

Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; Francis B. Carter, Judge.

Proceedings by the state for the disbarment of W. L. Zachary. Judgment for the state, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Charges preferred against an attorney for the purpose of disbarring him should be clear and specific, and should be stated with great particularity, that the attorney may be fully apprised of the nature of the charge he is called upon to meet, and may be enabled to prepare his defense.

Not only the act itself charged against an attorney in a proceeding against him for disbarment must be proved to have been committed, but the bad or fraudulent motive for the commission thereof must also be established, either from the act itself, or from proof of other circumstances; and, unless this is done, disbarment is not authorized.

An appellate court, in reviewing the proceedings of a lower court disbarring an attorney, should not interfere with the conclusions of the latter court upon the evidence, unless it is clear that the latter court, viewing its action in the light of the rule which requires clear proof of the act and of the bad motive of the attorney, has decided erroneously in which case it is the duty of the appellate court to interfere.

Evidence examined, and found insufficient to support the conclusions of the circuit court, or to sustain the judgment.

COUNSEL E. T. Davis and C. M. Jones, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD C.J.

This is a proceeding instituted by the state, on motion of the state attorney for the First judicial circuit, under the directions of the judge of the circuit court, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 4379, p. 141, Laws of 1895, against the plaintiff in error, herein designated as the defendant, for the disbarment of the defendant as an attorney at law.

In view of the conclusion which we have reached, no usefull purpose can be accomplished by setting forth the proceedings in detail. It will suffice to state that the charge made in such motion against the defendant was that, on the 2d day of May, 1900, the defendant 'did then and there fraudulently and corruptly conspire and collude with one George W. Pennington, now deceased, to defraud the creditors of the said George W. Pennington, the names of such creditors being to the state attorney unknown.'

It is further alleged in such motion that in furtherance of such conspiracy the said Pennington on said date executed a deed to the defendant to certain described real estate of the value of $300, which deed was without any valuable consideration, and was executed for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Pennington by placing the property therein conveyed beyond their reach, all of which was well known to the defendant, who entered into such conspiracy and took possession of such real estate conveyed in such deed claiming it as his own.

The defendant filed an answer to this motion, in which he specifically denied the...