The morning call., 1894-06-16
QUITE SEVERELY CRITICIZED.
Two Briefs Ordered Struck From
the Files of the Court.
FOR UNPRoFEssIoNAL LANGUAGE
He Accused His Opponents of Dis
honesty and the Trial Judge of
COnniVanCe Therein.

Attorney Horace W. Philbrook has got
himself into trouble with the Supreme
Court An order was made by the court
yesterday directing that the irascible at
torney's briefs in the case of Seth Warner
against the F. Thomas Partisan DyeinR
and Cleaning Works be struck from the
files of the court.
The trouble is all owing TO an unfor-
tunate habit which Philbrook contracted
OF hurting extravagant charges at the
heads of his opponents in legal action.
The circumstances of the case are as fol-
lows: Seth Warner sued as assignee of
the firm of Rankin, Brayton & Co. to re-
cover 1881 on two contracts for the de-
livery OF a Hazelton steam boiler. The
case was tried before Judge Hunt and a
jury, and a verdict rendered for the full
amount claimed.
The defendants made a motion for a
new trial upon statement of the case,
and when that statement had been settled
Philbr0ok moved to deny the motion on
the ground that the statement was a mere
skeleton, owing to the omission of certain
documentary exhibits which had been in
troduced in evidence at the trial. There
upon the defendants counsel, Reinstein
and Eisner. moved TO vacate the settle
ment of the statement. in order that the
omission might be rectifed, when the
statement might be resettled.
In spite of Philbrook's vigorous resis-
lance the last motion was granted by
Judge Hunt, the omission rectified ana the
statement resettled. Philbrook took an
appeal to the Supreme Court from this
Or1er resettling the statement.
While stating the law upon the subject
as we'll as the facts in the case. Philbrook
in his appellants brief made wholesale
charges against Reinstein and Eisner, his
opponents. He stated that when these at
torneys came to look for the missing ex-
hibts they could net find them, but they
procured a document that had never been
introduced at tho trial at all, and induced
one John B. Martin, Judge Hunts court
room clerk at the time of the trial, but by
that time out of office, TO go pTivlly down
to their Office and there privily mark the
document defendants exhibit a j.
B. NJ"
Philbrook stated in his brief that he ex-
posed this fraud TO Judge Hunt but his
pleas were ignored and the statement was
He spoke in this wise of Judge Hunt
THE court below. in making its findings
as to what the evidence was and in settling
the amended statement. backed the re-
spondeDL's counsel in his corrupt practice
of fraudulently procuring a document not
in evidence, to be dishonesty marked as
an exhibit"
In their answering brief the defendants
lawyers object strongly to this language Of
counsel, and it is even said that accusa-
tons were made against Philbrook. How
ever, he filed another brief in reply. in
which he stuck to his assertions and wound
up with a general war-whoop for the
principles Of eternal justice.
The Supreme Court. however, erefused
to sympathize with the luckleSs Philbrook
in his honest endeavors TO unmask the
ViIlainy Of his cOmpeers. Heartiessly ig-
noring the sensational revelations which
the worthy attorney afforded them in sup
port of his cause, the court handed
down yesterday the following order. brief
but 10 the point:
THE briefs filed herein on behalf of the
appellant contain reflections upon the
Integrity and conduct of the Superior
Court In which the case was tried. as we'll
as on the counsel for the respondent, and
indicate such manifest disregard of the
respect due from an attorney to the judicial
tribunals of the State that it is not proper
that they should be permitted to remain
unnotieed or without rebuke.
ut is therefore ordered that the said
brief be struck from the files of the court. :"
Mr.. PhilbrOok will now have to 90 to
the trouble of getting up fresh briefs. in
which legal facts will doubtless take the
place of vituperative assertions.