Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Harrington

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division

July 11, 1911

In the Matter of EUGENE W. HARRINGTON, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Respondent.

APPLICATION by the respondent for a rehearing in disbarment proceedings.

COUNSEL

Simon Fleischmann, for the motion.

Wesley C. Dudley, District Attorney, and Guy B. Moore, Assistant District Attorney, opposed.

KRUSE, J.:

An order disbarring the respondent attorney was heretofore made by this court (140 A.D. 939), and a motion is now made for a rehearing upon newly-discovered evidence, contained in certain affidavits submitted upon this application.

The only newly-discovered evidence which is material or could

Page 220

in any view of the case affect the result is contained in the affidavit made by Curtis M. Shawkey, a Pennsylvania lawyer, the nature and contents of which will be stated hereafter.

The respondent insists that an injustice has been done him, and seems to have an impression that our decision of disbarment rests alone upon the unsupported testimony of his former client. In that he is under a misapprehension. If his disbarment rested upon her testimony alone, without any corroborating circumstances, we might reach a different conclusion. But such is not the case.

In April, 1908, Almeda C. Berlin, the client, went to the office of the respondent lawyer. She went to see him about certain claims she had against Wilton C. Lindsey, arising out of five bonds, of the par value of $500 each, which were in Lindsey's possession, and an obligation against Lindsey upon which he was owing her, as she claimed, $750; making in all not to exceed $3,250. These are all the claims she had against Lindsey.

She had several interviews with the lawyer. The first was on Tuesday, April twenty-eighth, as she claims, and by Saturday of the same week the matter had been adjusted between Lindsey and her lawyer, so that on that day the lawyer made a settlement with her. He claims the matter between Lindsey and himself was in course of adjustment for a week or two longer than she states.

That he collected from Lindsey $4,000 is not in dispute. He obtained from Lindsey a mortgage for $2,333.33 and two checks made by Lindsey, payable to the order of Almeda C. Berlin, the client; one on the Union Trust Company of Jamestown for $666.67 and the other on the Bank of Buffalo for $1,000. Both checks were dated May 1, 1908, and the settlement by the lawyer with his client was made May 2, 1908. He stated that he would attend to the recording of the mortgage papers. He had her indorse the $666.67 check, and then gave her his own check for that amount upon the Marine National Bank of Buffalo, dated May 2, 1908.

He did not have her indorse the $1,000 check, but claims he told her of that check, which she denies. He concedes that he indorsed her name ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.