Morning journal and courier., 1885-06-10
THE COURT RECORD.

The Supreme Court of Errors.
 This court came in yesterday morning at if o'clock.
 After the usual formalities Judge Carpenter said
 in grave tone. that in the case of Samuel B. John l son against William E. Higgins the court would overrule the motion to rectfy which had been filed and argued last Tuesday. In connection herewith l Judge Carpenter read the following: "We regret the necessity which compels to notice publicly the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff As is well known to members of the profession, counsel are only permitted to argue motions to rectify motions for a trial in writing The argument of the counsel for the plaintiff is objectionable in tone, spirit and temper. He was evidently very much embittered to- wards counsel on the other side, and that page of his argument He induIges freely in op- probrious and contemptuons language, as though
 uenced by such exhibitions of spite and petty nal ice when there is nothing in the that calls for sel on the other side that furnishes any apology for it.
 to opposing counsel gentlemen who, it may, be presumed are are his peers and as such, entitled to but it is highly dfsrespectful to us. It supposes that we will not only listen patiently to and suggestions, but that we wifi allow I them to influence our judgments. In that he makes lawyer should be gentleman. By r becoming rs:a professional man he should not cease to be man gentenaniy is unprofessional We can sometimes aea @ overlook fS n such IT., language TlS when it is ut. of the trial I espeeia1ly aud in eAGleemeer Yonneer members of the professien; put when gentleman writing an argument addressed to members of this clothed in such S 9ePsyS feel respect and due regard to the dignity of the court compels us to do it.
 short of positive contempt. The offense must not be repeated either by him or by any other member
 Attorney c. s. Hamilton who was the person re- ter. He said that if he had done anything which was disrespectful to the court he very sorry W very much annoyed and by the tions of counsel the other side who think tried to aggravate me have been sick also and troubled good deal by this dictated my brief to the senographer and did not take pains to look it revised V T it probably know that the court cannot understand or know what provocation have had apology for everything said that was not pro per-
 There moments lull after MT, Hamilton had resumed his seat, after which Judge Carpen ter sad ''Of course the court accepts the apoio- gy.
 The case referred to above was that of Johnson against Higgins, defendants appeal The suit 10, 1884, constalle Higgins attached and renewed the stock T 1 oeds in JohnsonS store 455 M State stance stance of simon salomon $ Son. of was supposed ownad the goods The argument last Tuesday was, as has been said, on motion to rec ClIy uleu Dy tte counsel TOT the defendantS. me arguments were written and handed in to the judges They are now in their possession, no copy having been made
 The important will case of Martha A: Bristol, ex-
 i1 p ee1Fge Pse of Pot9 wss argddsd df yn pToerty worth 1 nearly saooc6o One hundred thousand dollars of his estate by will was designa- ted benevolent fund, w. T. Bartlett, of this city and E. W. Twitchell, of southington. being named as truste sfor the fund.- the income of which was to be divided between several charitable insti tutions, the New Haven Orphan Asylum receiving the lions share. The Home for the Friendless also of this city and the Connecticut Humane society were likewise remembered George D. Bristol a of the deceased endeavors to set aside the pro- visions of his fathers will and his mother who is dcsirous of carrying out her husbands bequests. asks for construction of the will.
 The case of Samuel B. Johnson vs. William E Higgins the case above referred to in connection with Mir. Hamilton's reprimand by the court, was taken up in the afternoon and argued it's merits by Hamilton for plaintiff and Townsend Whiting and Newton for defendants.
 The next to be argued is that of John Crogan vs. Louis Schiller.
 The case of Solomon Cohen vs. Wm. M Pember- ton was submitted on briefs.
 The court adjourned until this morning at 10 o'clock.