In re Kenna

¶1The attorney is blamable for his omission to remit in due course moneys to his client out of town, and for his carelessness in not heeding the client’s requests for the moneys. But as we find no proof that the attorney’s omission was due to design on his part to keep those moneys to his own use, we think that he is sufficiently punished by a formal censure of the court, which we now impose. Present — Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ.