The record-union., 1894-12-20

anu tneY were executed IN the presence
Oh the executor, the buyers and their at
torneys and the executors attorneys
The heirs. the mother and sisters, through
their attorney, set up the claim that the
good Will of the business should be in
cluded in any valuation. The attorney
of the executor had distinctly told the at
torney for the heirs that there was no
good will to sell, as the partnership
agreement precluded it and was binding.
and he should advise the executor to
carry it out, as it was the law, which he
did. For some time the sale was not
known to the heirs, and this is charged
as evidence of secresy and fraud. They
were not notified to be present at the sale
and this is charged as part of conspir
acy to defraud. The agreement of sale
was written by the executors attorney,
now Justice, and this, It is charged, is
evidence Of a conspiracy to influence the
minds of any Judges before whom any
litigation might come, because the attor-
ney expected to be elected to the bench.
1t was admitted that the only issue
raised between the heirs and the executor
prior to the sale was as to the goodwill.
The heirs brought their action, to set
aside the sale, we believe, and the whole
matter came before Judge Wallace of the
Superior Court, and was deliberately tried
and all the facts brought out. even to the
social relations of the executor and the
buyer and the nomination and election Of
Harrison, and every thing else that the
heirs wished. The court found, as a matter
of fact, that there was no fraud, no collu-
sion, no scintilla of evidence suggesting
fraud or conspiracy, no forecast of possi-
bic influence upon Judges minds, and
no goodwill to SELL and that the executor
had acted within the law and the bounds
Of his duty.
From this judgment the case went to
the Supreme Court upon appeal. 1t also
went up in another form on a separate ap-
peal not material in this consideration.
When the heirs attorney, Mr. Philbrook,
came to file his brief in the Supreme
Court he went to the extent of hundreds
of pages in the exploitation of the whole
case, charging on the testimony certified
up that there was fraud; that Justice Har-
rison was at the bottom of it, and that
with cunning he had foreseen his cleo
ton, and that his personality in the case
would have all effect upon the minds of his
associates in the court and prevent them
from doing justice in the case. because they
would want to protect the reputation of
member of the bench; and he charged
that in fact it would so influence and
have an effect upon the minds of the
members of the court, which is to say,
that the Supreme Court is open to corrupt
ing influence.
But the attorney went beyond this and
told the Supreme Court in so many
words: If you decide against me it will
be taken that you ratify and make per-
missible the corruption I charge against
Mr.. Harrison. If you decide against me
it will be because you are yourselves cor
rupt.
''But if this secret transaction of September
6, 1880, is not declared illegatand void upon
the rules and principles declared in Egerton
VS.. Earl BrownloW, then all to whom knowl-
edge OF the case shall come Will no longer
merely suspect or even think that the courts
may be corrupted. They will know it. They
may point to the decision here as full proof of
q a
tees are permissible, and, If permissible, they
are sure TO have effect"
For this and the whole insulting line
of charges the court cited him, as an
officer of its own, to show cause why he
should not be ciplined-why he should
not be disbarred for violation of his oath
as an attorney. Generally, neither press
nor people take concern when a court
castigates one of its own attorneys. If
the courts are not to keep these gentle
men straight, no one else can. But here
we have the press, in part, rushing to the
defense of Philbrook simply and solely
because he has laid a charge of corrup-
ton which has failed of proof and has
threatened court if it does not decide as
he wishes.
His defense is that what he has set out
he believes to be true, as to corruption;
that, as to the threat, he meant, ''people
would say the court is corrupt if the
court rules against him.; that he used
the language likewise in a Pick
wickian sense; that he has entire conf
less and not corrupt, else he had not
appealed; that the right of free speech
guarantees him liberty to say what he
pleases in his brief in defense of the
rights of his clients; that it is they who
speak, and not him.
To which his feIlow-members of the
San Francisco bar. by their own commit
tee, in effect reply: "The language of the
brief is grossly unprofessional and con-
temptuous, and if the respondent does
not know it, he is not fit to practice; if he
does know it, then he ought to be pun
ished by disbarment; the alleged facts he
sets up are not proven, and the court be-
low so found, and an appeal is pending
which is not before the Supreme Court in
this proceeding, but simply the question.
is the threat in the brief in violation of the
oath of the attorney and is it dangerous