Opinion by

Tbe Board of Governance bas recommended that W. Lloyd Snyder, who is sixty-five years of age, who bas been a member of tbe Northumberland County Bar for more than forty years, and of tbe Bar of this Court for approaching twenty-nine years, and who, in all that time bas bad no blemish on bis professional career, save that now being considered, shall be disbarred on the ground that be violated Section 74 of tbe Act of April 14, 1834, P. L. 333,17 PS sec. 1662, by retaining for a long period —four years — tbe sum of $183.58, which bad been placed in bis bands, by a building association, of which be was solicitor, for tbe purpose of paying a municipal lien against a property on which tbe association bad negotiated a loan to Lizabette Derito, secured by a first mortgage. Tbe money bas been paid over since tbe complaint against respondent was filed.

In their brief, tbe Board of Governance says: “While tbe Respondent’s previous unblemished record at tbe Bar extending over a period of many years, bis illness during tbe particular period in question, and tbe smallness of tbe amount of money involved, are certainly matters which must be given careful consideration, it is suggested that they do not make tbe admitted unprofessional conduct any less offensive. Tbe Board of Governance, of course, agrees with the Respondent’s statement that your Honorable Court in this case, as indeed *526 in all disciplinary matters, may exercise its discretion as to the appropriate punishment which should be imposed upon the Respondent.”

It is our understanding, that the recommendation of disbarment made by the Board of Governance results solely from its conclusion, that respondent had violated Section 74 of the Act of 1834. That is a very drastic provision of the law. It makes disbarment mandatory, if the offense charged comes clearly within its language: “If any such attorney shall retain money belonging to his client after demand made by the client for the payment thereof, it shall be the duty of the court to cause the name of such attorney to be stricken from the record of the attorneys, and to prevent him from practicing longer in the said court.” (Italics supplied.)

The record discloses no demand made by the building association upon respondent for the payment of the money. It does show demand by Mrs. Derito. Whether she was his client is at least doubtful, beyond question the association was. In this situation, and in view of the other alleviating circumstances shown by the record and in the quoted portion of the report of the Board of Governance, we are not disposed to apply the stern provisions of Section 74. It is to be noted, that the local Board of Censors was evenly divided on the question of punishment to be meted out, as was the court below, which certified the case to the Board of Governance.

We think Section 73 of the Act is the more appropriate one to apply under the circumstances here appearing. It provides: “If any attorney at law shall misbehave himself in his office of attorney, he shall be liable to suspension, removal from office or to such other penalties as have hitherto been allowed in such cases by the laws of this Commonwealth.” In accordance therewith, it is ordered and decreed that W. Lloyd Snyder be and he is hereby suspended from the Bar and from the practice of law for the period of six months from the date of the filing of this decree. It is directed that he shall pay. the costs.