SUPREME COURT
GIVES OPINIONS.
Attorney F. Rivers Richardson
Disbarred for a Year.
Dudenhefer and Monfre Cases Finally
Disposed Of.
Judge Saunders Dismisses Indictments
Against Illinois Central
For Taking Rebates From Ships on
Cotton Delivered, Deeming
Them Insufficient.
The Supreme Court yesterday
handed down a decision in the case
of the State vs. F. Rivers Richardson,
in which it decreed that the
attorney be debarred from practicing
his profession in this State for the
space of one year. The decision of
yesterday puts an end to one of the
most interesting cases in the annals
of the court for several years past,
and marks an epoch in the legal history
of this State for it is said that
no lawyer has been disbarred since
the Civil War, although there have
been several disbarment proceedings
instituted against erring lawyers.
It will be recalled that Richardson
was the attorney for a woman
named Mrs. A. J. Wingling, who was
seeking to get a divorce from her
husband on what were proved to be
statutory grounds, and which grounds
were admitted by the husband. Mrs.
Wingling appealed to Richardson
who ascertained that she owned some
paraphernal property and he advised
her to sell it, and by a series of
mutations, Mrs. Wingling found that
her property had passed into the
hands of Richardson, while she had
some of his property in return, while
a difference of nearly $1,000 in value
between the two properties was
charged by Richardson for obtaining
her divorce and getting her authorized
to sell the property to him.
On the stand Richardson admitted
that he had charged the sum mentioned
as a contingent fee and took
the money even before he had instituted
the suit for which the fee was
paid. It also came out during the
examination that Richardson, in direct
violation of a provision of the
Civil Code, had been furnished with
witnesses of the husband's infidelity
by representatives of the husband.
The proceedings against Richardson
were instituted by the Disbarment
Committee of the Louisiana Bar
Association before the Supreme Court,
and the proceedings were the first
original proceeding held in that court
within ten years. The case for the
State was looked after by Mr. Joseph
Carroll of the Bar Association, and
Attorney General Walter Guion,
while Mr. Richardson was defended
by Messrs. Rufus S. Foster, Don
Caffery, Frank L. Richardson and
Weeks and Weeks, and the legal battle
between them lasted for several days.
The judgement, which was written
by Judge Breaux, is based largely on
the charges of collusion in the divorce
case, and are concurred in by the
rest of the Court, with the exception
of Justice Provosty, who announced
on the trial of the case that he
thought that the ideal condition in a
divorce case would be where the
husband would come into court and
facilitate his wife's case by admitting
his sin.
The Court also handed down a
number of other decisions, among
others refusing rehearings in the
cases of Joseph Monfre, the bomb-thrower,
and Ferdinand Dudenhefer,
the defaulting tax-collector.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE J.A. BREAUX.
State of Louisiana vs. F. Rivers
Richardson - 1, The Contract: There
was a want of sufficient consideration
in a transaction, which resulted
in the tranfer of property. 2. Witnesses
in Divorce Suit: The evidence
produced assisted in establishing
facts of a date preceding the suit
and facilitated the wife in obtaining
her divorce. Client and counsel
should decline to accept the offer
of the opposite party to the suit of
evidence to prove his or her matrimonial
offense. The witnesses to
prove the offense were procured by
the plaintiff's husband. As relates
to material points in course of
proceedings for divorce, each of the
parties to the suit should decline to
enter into an agreement facilitating
the proof of the offense. The main
should be left to be made out by
the respective parties. The law and
the evidence being in favor of
regulator, and against the respondent, it
is ordered, adjudged and decreed that
judgement be and the same is hereby
rendered suspending the respondent
from practicing at the bar for the
term of twelve months. It it, [is?]
further, ordered, adjudged and decreed
that during that number of months
he is suspended from practicing as
an attorney at law and from appearing
before the courts of this State.
It is further ordered, adjudged and
decreed that he is to pay costs.
Provosty, J., dissents and will file his
reasons.
