
    In the Matter of James W. Carpenter, an Attorney.
    The stenographic minutes of the three days’ hearing by the court on plaintiff’s motion that affiants Berkery and Breen be produced are convincing that the court should have been told that at the meeting of August 15, 1914, Breen had asked Carpenter for $7,500. Charges of such inducements had been made ■ in open court. But Carpenter’s affidavit of January thirtieth left the impression that Breen had not asked for money reward, and stated that Breen said “ he would rely entirely upon your deponent being fair with him.” For this suppression the official referee has found against Carpenter. We confirm the report, and thereby express our disapproval of Carpenter’s failure to make full disclosure in his affidavit of what Breen had demanded, for which Carpenter is hereby censured. We have not overlooked that Carpenter was an attorney of excellent record and standing; that he sought to serve the interests of his client alone; that he was a junior counsel, and that he acted in zeal for his client to ferret out what he thought was perjury or the danger of perjury. The wise and prudent course for an attorney who suspects the existence or the possibility of venal testimony in litigation is to lay the matter forthwith before the criminal authorities 'witho'ut -enlistment under them or the proffer of financial aid from his client to them. He should abstain from activities on his own part that belong to the police, or the district attorney.
   Present — Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blaekmar and Kelly, JJ.  