
    
      In re CLINK.
    Attorneys — Disbarment.
    An application for the disbarment of an attorney will he denied unless the charges against him are clearly sustained by the evidence.
    Application by Henry E. Chase, deputy attorney general, for the disbarment of Stephen H. Clink and Philip W. Niskern.
    Heard before the Supreme Court June 4, 1898.
    Denied July 12, 1898.
    
      Henry E. Chase, in pro. per.
    
    
      W. J. Turner (M. V. & R. A. Montgomery, of counsel), for respondent Clink.
    
      George S. Lovelace and Chamberlain & Cross, for respondent Niskern.
   Per Curiam.

While this proceeding has been held not to be strictly a criminal prosecution, still the punishment is severe and highly penal. The charges ought to be clearly sustained. To quote the language of this court in a similar proceeding, we “are not satisfied that the evidence gives such clear support to the charges as should be required in such cases.” In re Baluss, 28 Mich. 507.

An order will therefore be entered denying the application.  