SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

to our satisfaction that in his transactions as an attorney the respondent traded on the ignorance of his clients and was so careless in his management of their interests that he is an unsafe person to have such interests in his keeping. Especially is this true when the evidence relating to the charges mentioned is viewed in the light of respondent's own attitude on the witness stand and the character of his testimony when testifying in regard to his client, Elitha Goban, which matter will be more specifically referred to hereafter.
The proof relating to the dealings between respondent and his client, Eladia Diaz, shows that Eladia Diaz was from time to time delivering to McIntyre, as her attorney, sums of money in currency which were to be paid by him as installment payments on a mortgage held by one W. H. Carrington, an attorney, and covering premises owned by said Diaz. McIntyre-made no entry in any book of account of the amounts so received, although he kept books of account, but issued receipts to his client, of which receipts he retained no duplicates. When the mortgage fell due and was about to be foreclosed for nonpayment of the full amount of principal and interest, McIntyre secured from Eladia Diaz the receipts which he had given her, in order, as he testified, to check up the amounts he had received with the amounts he had paid to the mortgagee. He did not return the receipts. McIntyre claims that in the foreclosure proceedings he obtained credit in the decree for all that his client had paid him, but in this she contradicts him, claiming that she had paid a total sum larger than he now admits receiving, or than was credited to her in the foreclosure proceedings.
It might be, of course, that repondent was merely negligent in the Diaz transaction; but the fact that he made no entries of the cash received is in itself a suspicious circumstance which, when coupled with his action regarding the receipts and with the further fact that women of the class of Eladia Diaz often have tenacious memories as to their own payments of cash leads tis to the- conclusion that her testimony in the matter is more credible than McIntyre's and that he has not accounted for the full sum he received from Eladia Diaz, and has not applied the whole of such sum to the use for which it was entrusted to him.
From the statements made by the respondent of his own volition in connection with the charge which is numbered 3 in the petition for disbarment, from his answers, both to questions propounded in cross-examina.tion and to inquiries put to him by justices of

138