State v. Goode

Disbarment — Rights op Attorneys. — In an application for the disbarment of an attorney, it is not proper for the court ordinarily to deprive the accused of his rights as an attorney, pending the investigation and trial of the cause. Writ op Review — Change op Venue. — A writ of review cannot be granted to review the action of the court in denying an application for change of venue inasmuch as it is not a final order, and there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal. (Syllabus by the court.)

PEOCEEDING by writ of review. No brief filed. Application by the state of Idaho, on the relation of Clay McNamee, district attorney, for the disbarment of George W. Goode. Defendant applies for a writ of review and a writ of mandate. Writ of review denied, and writ of mandate granted. This is an application for disbarment of the defendant, and the deprivation of his rights and privileges as an attorney and •counselor at law. It seems that in the trial of a criminal case which was taking place in the district court of the second judi•cial district, a witness made a statement upon the stand that the •defendant, George TV. Goode, had threatened him with the penitentiary if he appeared as a witness and testified, in the case then on trial. This fact coming to the knowledge of the court, as it did in open court, and other matters being presented to the judge of the court in the nature of an accusation against the defendant, the court thought proper to appoint a committee of investigation to inquire into these charges against the attorney, and ascertain if the evidence was sufficient to warrant the filing of the information against the defendant under section 4005 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the disbarment of attorneys. Thereafter this committee, having investigated the facts connected with the accusation, made a report to the court recommending the commencement of proceedings under this statute for disbarment. Thereupon an information in writing was filed by the district attorney for the second judicial district, under section 1005, which information was verified by the oath of the said district attorney. IJpon receiving the accusation the -court directed that the cause be placed upon the calendar, issued a notice to the accused to appear and defend the accusation, •and appointed a committee to make an investigation, and report the facts to the court. Thereupon the defendant made an application to the court for a change of venue, upon the ground of prejudice of the judge who was then sitting in the hearing of the cause. Affidavits were presented by the defendant and some other parties in support of said application, showing facts which would seem clearly to indicate that the judge of said court was influenced so much by his prejudices against the defendant that he could not try this case with the impartiality that ought to be exercised in the ease of all trials before the court. The application was denied. Thereupon the defendant makes an application to this court for writ of review and for writ of mandate to compel the judge of the district court to allow the defendant a change of venue, and also to direct the judge of said court to set aside his order suspending the defendant from his rights and privileges as an attorney during the pendency of this investigation; an order having been entered at the time of the filing of the information against the accused, by the judge of the district court, depriving the defendant of his right to bring or defend any causes in said court except, those then on the calendar, in which he appeared as attorney.