Case ID: wash_37/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 5451.
    Decided February 4, 1905.]
    Arthur W. Coats, Appellant, v. Seattle Electric Company, Respondent.
      
    
    Appeal and Error — Briefs—Striking Out. A brief referring to the trial judge in grossly discourteous language will be struck out on motion, with leave to file a proper brief within thirty days.
    Motion to- strike appellant’s brief and affirm the judgment.
    Motion to strike granted.
    
      Wooten & Welch, for appellant.
    
      Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 79 Pac. 484.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is a motion to strike the appellant’s brief, for the reason that it refers to' the trial judge in language grossly discourteous, unprofessional, scandalous, and impertinent. An examination of the brief convinces us that the language used is properly described in the motion to strike. We deem it unnecessary to- quote the language, or to make further comment. Counsel should know their rights and their duties as officers of the court- without lectures or admonitions from us. We trust the striking of the brief will be a sufficient penalty for the breach of professional duty complained of, and that the offense will not be repeated. The appellant is allowed thirty days in which to file a proper brief. The brief of the respondent may stand, or counsel may, at their option, file a further brief.