AUGUSTA — The Superior Court nomination of Peter L. Murray, who acknowledged on the eve of his confirmation hearing that he had failed to disclose a 1978 reprimand by a state bar committee to the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, snagged inconclusively Thursday night.

The 13-member committee voted along party lines to table the matter until next Wednesday, which is the day the Senate is to convene to consider several pending nominations.

The committee vote was 8-5, with the Democratic majority supporting the tabling motion and with Republicans opposing.

The committee’s ultimate recommendation is viewed as the controlling factor in a nominee’s prospects for confirmation. It would take a two-thirds Senate majority to overturn the committee’s recommendation.

The panel’s vote followed five hours of testimony in which numerous lawyers from around the state lavishly praised Murray’s talent and integrity while one witness — the husband in a divorce case that Murray, who represented the wife, acknowledged mishandling — pleaded with the panel to block his appointment.

Francis R. Capozza of Scarborough, alleging that Murray initially sought to mislead bar committee investigators more than a decade ago before conceding that Capozza’s account of his actions was accurate, told the committee: “I’m sure Mr. Murray’s a good lawyer. But he lied and it should be known.”

Capozza, who operates a plumbing and heating business in Portland, also said he was troubled that Murray “conveniently forgot to tell” the Legislature about the private letter of reprimand he received in the aftermath of the Capozza divorce case.

Murray’s response to Capozza’s allegations following the divorce case more than a decade ago “shows me that his integrity and character are definitely questionable,” Capozza said.

Murray indicated that he accepted the bar committee’s letter as a caution against future actions. Capozza’s allegations about Murray’s having “lied” appeared to rest on correspondence with bar committee representatives: one wrote in August 1977 that Murray “denies the allegations;” another wrote Capozza in June 1978 that Murray had “largely corroborated” the actions outlined by Capozza.

The nominee, a prominent Portland lawyer who teaches at the Harvard law school and who has represented a variety of state agencies while maintaining his private practice, addressed the question of what he called “the sufficiency of my responses” by asserting: “I have never intended to withhold anything from the committee.”

Murray said that, while the 1978 reprimand might not have been serious enough to warrant disclosure, he would have listed it in the nominee’s questionnaire supplied by the Legislature if he had recalled it.

And, of the controversial divorce case incident itself, he said, “I certainly acknowledge the appropriateness of the warning or admonition.”

According to documents supplied to the committee, the reprimand stemmed from a February 1976 meeting between Murray and Capozza at which Murray presented Capozza with two versions of a divorce summons — one alleging adultery and one without the allegation.

According to Capozza, whose account was subsequently checked out by a grievance committee of the Maine State Bar Association, Murray advised him he would be served with the version alleging adultery unless he agreed to certain conditions, including moving out of his house and avoiding contact with his wife pending the outcome of the divorce, according to the husband’s complaint.

The bar panel later concluded that Murray had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by giving advice to someone who was not represented by his own attorney and whose interests were opposite those of Murray’s client.

Murray told the panel Thursday that his actions, while not “threatening or overbearing,” in hindsight were improper and that he realized his mistake almost immediately and broke off further discussions with Capozza.

Murray said he “may have erred a little” and said his actions arose out of concern for his client’s — Capozza’s wife — well-being.

“It is not a matter of moral turpitide (or) egregious judgment,” he told the panel.

Democratic committee members speaking in support of the tabling motion insisted later that their vote to delay consideration of the nomination was not politically motivated.

“Everybody here dreads these occasions when we have to make painful choices,” said Sen. N. Paul Gauvreau, D-Lewiston.