People v. Justices of the Delaware Common Pleas
New York Supreme Court
Hopkins, at the last term, obtained a rule on the judges and assistant justices of the court of common pleas of the county of Delaware, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to restore Philip Gephard to the office of an attorney of that court, from which he had been removed by them.
Read the full summary
Hopkins, at the last term, obtained a rule on the judges and assistant justices of the court of common pleas of the county of Delaware, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to restore Philip Gephard to the office of an attorney of that court, from which he had been removed by them. The judges and assistant justices at this term showed ' ■for. cause, certain charges of malrconduct against Mr, Gephard in his official situation, and the proofs by which [*182] *they were supported, These proofs they had deemed sufficient, and thereupon had proceeded to remove him from…
1Per curiam
We are of opinion, that the affidavits, do not sufficiently support the charge of mal-conduct, but are rather to be considered as evidence of mistake, than of intentional error. • At least, the ground of removal was too slight for'a punishment so severe.
As to the second point. Before the revolution, the-power of appointing attorneys was exercised by the governor of the colony, whether justifiably or not it is immaterial to inquire. His power was recognized by the courts, and the attorneys admitted to practice. By the constitution of this state, the power of appointing-attorneys was…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Foot v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- People ex rel. Mulford v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
- Judges of the Oneida Common Pleas v. People ex rel. SavageNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- State ex rel. Thatcher v. HornerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Fish v. WeatherwaxNew York Supreme Court · 1801
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.