The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-05-26
upreme Court, of North oarolina.

!
absent on account of sickness. Chief JUS
tice Pearson delivered the following opln-
ion, all the Court, concurring: 4,Tseoq
Erparte B. r. Moore, Esp, attorney, dc,
The protestatian with which the answer
opens. is irrelevant to any matter torconsid'
Grafton at this stage of the preceding, and
would not he noticed save that it is calcu-
lated to create prejudice in the minds OF
persons who do not understand the mean
Ing of terms used in Judicial proceedings
;, laymen" as brother Battle termed then
This was a rule nisi, to-wit: that MIR.
Moore, and other gentlemen, be disabled
from hereafter appearing as Attorneys In
this Court. unless they shall scyerally ap-
pear, on Tuesday, the 18th OF June, 1869,
and show cause to the contrary, and 1t was
ordered that copy be served on said At
torneys. ''''
The effect of the rule was to deprive MIR.
Moore of his privileges as an Attorney OF
this Court, until the matter was disposed of
No application was made to alter the form
of the rule. Suppose it had been, and the
rule put in this Shape: Ordered, that notice
issue to B. F. Moore, ESQ.,, Attorney, DC, to
appear on Tuesday, the 18th inst, and show
cause why he shall not be disabled, DC, 1t
would have had the effect of deprlving him
of the privilege of appearing as an Attor-
ney in this Court until the matter was dis
posed of. For the order wonld not have
been made except upon PrinaH fdeie EVIL
dence to support it. So, in either form,
the effect would have been to deprive MIR.
Moore g temporarily of his privileges as an
Attorney of this Court Il necessary Incl
dent of the preceding in either form. Con-
sequently. the form, oil the rule is no lesiti-
mate ground for complaint. L,s.,,
The other objection, that the rule was
made without affidavit. or other legal proof
ot the facts, npon which it is based. is
equally untenaI,le. 1t is admitted that
where the pronf is furnished by the senses
of the Judges, it may he acted on. Here,
there was such proof We knew by our
senses that newspaper containing the pa
per referred to, purporting to be signed by
Mr.. Moore and Others had been extensively
circulated and was then in the Court Room:
and the want of disavowa on his part,
that he had signed the paper. or consented to
its publication. furnished pTima farie proof;
not sufficient ior. fnal action, but all suifi-
cient as ground for the rule. On hisap-
pearance he was at liberty to deny the fact,
without an oath. and the denial. like the
plea of mot guilty" would simply have
put the fact in issue-and lie would have
been entitled to have the rule discharged,
unless the fact was proved by direct testi-
saony. Instead of that. he admits the fact.
H., -, ;el,, n1 .f
plant. In short, all the preliminary objec-
tions We're waived, and the reference to them
can answer no useful purpose. ~
l. "The Respondent insists that the Su-
preme Court hath no authority tn make, or
Jurisdiction to enforce, said rule" This
position is put on the ground that the stat
ute, ratified 10th of April, 1869, defines all
matters of contempt, fixes the punishment,
fine or imprisonment, or both and, by an
plicati0n, Gusts the common law jurisdic-
ton of the Court over the morals and be-
havior of its Attorneys. -
We agree with the learned counsel of the
in the opinion that the statute
does not embrace our case. 1t is not EN-
braced 10y subdivision s. section l. mis-
of any officer of Court in any
official transaction" as receiving money
and failing to pay it over. So the
question is, are the Courts deprived,
by implication, OF the power of self
protection and the means of relieving
themselves from the presence of unworthy
Attorneys, or those Attorneys who. by COM
bination, q will not use the harsher word,
seek to impair the dignity and
veneration, with which the judiciary is in
vested. by which it CAN command the re-
spect and confidence of the public, with
out which, its usefulness will be greatly I'M
paired, OF altogether destroyed A mere
statement of the proposition is sufficient to
show that the statute has not that effect.
By another statute, persons who apply for
The eeclusiye pri1ilcges of Attorneys at Law,
and the right to enjoy the emoluments of
the dignifed position of "a member of the
Bar are required to produce satisfactory
testimonials of good moral character, and
thereupon the law tacitly annexcs condition
whereby this exclusive privilege is forfeited
after bad conduct; and it is not only tile
right, but the duty of the courts, to enforce
the forfeiture. Suppose an Attorney of a
Court is tried and convicted of forgery"
and the day after enduring infamous punish
meRt, appears in Court; is he to be allowed
to exercise the privilege OF an Attorney, and
has the Court me power to make, or juris-
diction to enfnIce" a rule, to show cause
why he shall not be disabled from appear
ing before it? Or. suppose two or more
Attorneys are convicted of a conspiracy,
which is an infamous offence; or of libel,
which is also an infamous offence, has the
Court no power to rule them cut2 No one
will venture TO question the power or duty
Of the Court to do So 1t may he said these
are extreme cases; true, but if The statute
does not Gust the Common law jurisdiction
in such cases, the learned gentlemen must
yield the position taken by them.
These cases prtsuppose trial and convic-
ton for an offence where The Court has no
further concern than to preserve the purity
of its Bar. But tile power and jurisdiction
of the Court. apply with equal clcarness to
eases where the integrity of tie C3art. itselY
IS assailed by II libcllous publication made
by Il combination of a partof its Bar, which,
in the argument of this point, is to be as
sumed to be our, Case Under these circum-
stances, the principle Of sell-protection, the
broad ground on which the whole doctrine
rests, calls into action the powers ct tho
Court, as soon as there is ggipG .tacie evil
dence of the fact, without waiting for trial
and conviction in another Court,-ike the
case of mutiny among a crew. The Captain
must put stop to II at once, else he betrays
the confidence rcposed in him; or. the case
of the head of family who finds some of
its members combining to injure, or to
d -. A