The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-10
IN SPITE OF DISBARMENT,
A Supreme Court Order Does
Not Stop Philbrook From
Practicing.
He VIII Seek an Elective Office and
Ask People to Vote
for Him.

$50 he ruled against me? Well, that is
the first heard of it," was the remark of
Attorney Horace w. Philbrook last night
when informed that Judge Hunt had de-
MED his motion to be substituted as plain
tiff in the action of Seth Warner against
the F. Thomas Partisan Dyeing Works.
Mr.. Philbrook, it will be remembered, is
the attorney who some time ago in q
brief filed in the Supreme Court made
serious charges against one of the Justices
of that court. The language he used was
of such a severe character that the Supreme
Court decided that the attorney had been
guilty of improper conduct, and made an
order that he be "disbarred for the period
of three years and until further order of
this court"
The Judgment of the Supreme Court,
Mr.. Philbrook says, will not prevent him
from appearing in any court in the State,
even the Supreme Court, and arguing
points of law. This he did last Saturday
before Judge Ellsworth of the Superior
Court of Alameda County. A man had
been arrested for violation of the license
law and was kept in jail in default of BAIL
Mr.. Philbrook, who had been sent for, dis
| covered that there was novel point of
law at issue, so he at once swore to a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the
release of the prisoner. He subsequently
appeared before Judge Ellsworth, who was
to hear the writ when the Judge informed
him that in view of the action taken by
the Supreme Court he could not permit
him to appear.
But" remarked Mr.. Philbrook, tiyour
Honor will hear me, for the law permits
| any one to appear as his own attorney and
as am the petitioner l have the right to
appear for myself."
Judge Ellsworth conceded that the law
gave him that right, and Mr.. Philbrook
went on with his argument. and will re-
sumo it this week.
Another step in the way of practicing
law was taken last week by Mr.. Philbrook,
and that was when he obtained an assign
m ent, made out in due form of law, by
Seth Warner, making him the plaintiff in
the action against the Thomas dye works.
The motion for substitution was argued by
the assignee on Friday and submitted.
Yesterday Judge Hunt made an order de-
nying the motion.
"The motion was denied for personal
reasons only" said Mr.. Philbrook, "as
there is no law for it. There has been a
little unpleasantness between Judge Hunt
and myself, and suppose that the denial
of the motion was because of that.
"What shall do in the matter? Well,
that is a matter for future consideration.
There are many steps to be taken yet.
There is no law that can prevent man
who is the plaintiff in a case from appear
ing in court for himself. This matter was
regularly assigned to me, and the motion
to substitute ought to have been granted.
"Now, there is that judgment of disbar-
ment entered against me by the
Supreme Court-that is void, and the court
knows it. If was guilty of contempt, the
only punishment they could visit was
either fine or imprisonment. That was
settled in the case of Stephen j. Field
forty years ago, when he was ad-
judged guilty of contempt. The appellate
court held that he could not be dfsbarred
as punishment for contempt. There is
| another decision, some twenty years ago,
of similar tenor. Then, again, if disbar-
ment is a punishment for contempt, as
the Supreme Court says, why the disbar-
ment must be absolute or for fixed time
In my case it is neither, and so advised
| the court, but it did not avail.
eff the bill which was passed by the
Legislature and which would have met my
l case. but was vetoed hv Governor Rudd>