
    [Crim. No. 2734.
    In Bank.
    November 6, 1925.]
    In the Matter of the Application of CLYDE E. CATE for Reinstatement as an Attorney at Law.
    
       Attorney at Law — Reinstatement — Jurisdiction — Re-examination.—Matter transferred to district court of appeal for further proceedings on authority of In re Stevens, ante, p. 408.
    APPLICATION for readmission as an attorney at law. Transferred to District Court of Appeal for further proceedings.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    John S. Cooper for Applicant.
    Norman S. Sterry, Oscar Lawler and Guy R. Crump for Respondent, Los Angeles Bar Association.
    Charles F. Hanlon, Amicus Curiae.
    
   LAWLOR, J.

The applicant, Clyde E. Cate, was, on June 14, 1912, admitted by the district court of appeal of the second appellate district to practice law in all the courts of this state. According to the petition of the applicant in the said district court of appeal an action was commenced against him in the superior court of Los Angeles County on April 23, 1918, charging applicant with the violation of the oath taken by him as an attorney and counselor at law, with violation of his duties as such attorney and counselor at law and with the commission of acts involving turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption and seeking his disbarment. On June 6, 1918, the said superior court entered its judgment disbarring the applicant.

This is the third application for reinstatement. The opinions in each of the two earlier applications will he found in In re Application of Clyde E. Cate, 54 Cal. App. 401 [201 Pac. 964], and In re Application of Clyde E. Cate, 60 Cal. App. 279 [212 Pac. 694], respectively.

The same questions are involved in this proceeding as in In re Application of Walter H. Stevens, ante, p. 408 [241 Pac. 88], and upon the authority of that case and for the reasons therein stated, it is ordered that the matter be transferred to the district court of appeal, second appellate district, division two, for further proceedings in accordance with the views therein expressed.

Shenk, J., Seawell, J., Waste, J., and Meyers, C. J., concurred.  