As the result of proceedings in the U. S. Court for China, Mr. Earl B. Rose, an American lawyer, has'been disbarred from practising in all American Courts in China, on the ground that he has been guilty of wilful deceit and misconduct in his profession. It was al-ledged against Mr. Rose that he had taken the securities of his clients, left with him for safe keeping, and had pledged them to others against personal loans made Judgement on an application for his disbarment, made by Mr. H D. Rodger, Special District Attorney, was delivered by his Honour Jwdge C. 8S. Lobingier on the 10th instant.
His Honour said This cause comes on for hearing upon the complaint and the evidence, the Special Assistant U. 8. Attorney uppouring la erpport of the complaint, but the respondent failing to appear, and the evidence disclosing that he has fed the jurisdiction after having been served with notice of this proceeding.
It appears from the testimony of James MacDonell and Stirling Fessenden that the respondent, member of the bar of this court and at the time also a member of the law firm of Jernigan, Fessenden & Rose, took certain securities for large amounts which had been entrusted by clients to him as a member of said firm in connexion with the drafting of contracts for them, and pledged the said securities to various banks against personal loans to the respondent. These transactions appear to have extended over more than a year, but the respondent seems to have succeeded by plausible explanations in allaying suspicion so that discovery of the full details, by those interested, was prevented until quite recently. Indeed the deceit practised toward these parties after the original misappropriation of the securities was nod the least serious part of {tho offence.
Under a statute previously applied by this court, it is empowered to disbar an attorney who is "guilty of any wilful deceit or misconduct in his profession." And prior conviction in a criminal prosecution is not a pre-requisite to such disbarment, though in this instance such a prosecution was instituted as soon as complaint was made to the prosecuting officer and is still pending awaiting apprehension of the accused.
The Court, therefore, finds that the averments of the complaint are true and that the respondent has been guilty both of "'wilful de-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.