The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-06
FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS
Scathing Decision Signed by Five
Justices.
ONE OPINION IS YET TO COME.
Justice Harrison INDICATED in the
Levinson-Newman Partnership
Settlement.

Attorney Horace W. Philbrook has re-
ceiyed his sentence. For language scan
dalous. disrespectful and contemptuGus
addressed to the Supreme Court, and par
ticularly to Mr.. Justice Harrison. men,
Der thereof, Philbrook will retire from the
bar for a period of three years. and his
reinstation at the end of that time will
depend upon the will and pleasure of the
court.
Horace has shown himself extremely
fond of getting into trouble. Some months
ago brief of his, filed in the case of War
ner VS.. The f. Thomas Partisan by cling
and Cleaning Works, was ordered stricken
from the record because of the contemptu-
GUS and insulting nature OF its language.
But the case which brought Phlbrook
finally to grief was that in which he took
up the cause of the widow and sisters of
the late John Levinson in an attempt 10
get an accoun ting from the Brothers New
man of the partn ership assets of the firm
of Newman d Levinson. Philbrook claimed
that the S20,7 S9, which was agreed be-
tween the executor and the Newmans to
represent LevinsoD's share of the busi-
ness. was not suffi cient. He claimed that
the good will OF the business ought TO be
included. and made charges of fraud. end
ing in civil action against tie New
mans.
But Judge Wallace, who heard the case,
decided against him. AMI much cOotumely
was heaped upon his head by the devoted
Phil0rOOk. In subsequent proceeding,
where PhilbroOk appeared before Judge
Coffey to oppose the settlement of the
executors account, the angry lawyer be-
trayed himself again. On one occasion
Judge Wallace himself took the stand and
testified before Judge Coffey that Phil
brooks acts had been such that he ought to
be dis barred.
Philbrook fled his transcript on appeal
in this celebrated Levins0n case. And by
and by, after many cOntinuances, he filed
his brief on appeal. The appeal was
gem. 1t was a vicious attack upon Justice
Harrison, who at the time of the settle
ment of the Levinson estate was an attor-
ney and a member of the firm of Jarboe &
Harrison.
1t appears that Judge Harrison was one
of the attorneys for the Newmans, and
was present at the nesting when the M
promise of Levinson's claims was made
between Executor Raveley and the New
mans. This proceeding Philbrook de-
scrlbed as "the secret transaction of
September 6. $780," and boldly accused
Ralph G. Harrison, now Supreme Court
Justice. of being foul cOnspirator and
abettor in a rascaly fraud. The brief was
several hundred pages long, and was so
clear in its point that it was no surprise to
any one that the Supreme Court ordered the
eccentric lawyer TO show cause why he
should not be disbarred for contempt.
PhHbrook appeared in answer to the
summons. and the proceedings are IA
miliar 10 all readers of The CALL Four
members of the Bar Associa alton volun-
70 cd irac hn
Court in prosecuting the case against
Philbrook, while the latter was his own
attorney, He offered no apology to the
court. but in long and exhaustive speech
pleaded that he was justified in making
The accusations he did. He also argued
that his charges were true.
The court gave Philbrook most patient
hearing. finally taking his case under ad-
yisement. Their decision on the question
was filed with the clerk of the Supreme
Court yesterday.
The opinion goes to some length in citing
the history of the case. Ii tells of the
citation served upon PhIbrook to show
cause why he should not be punished for
contempt of court PhilbrOok'S citation
and his appearance and argument, which
lasted for TWO days, are given some space.
Reference is also made TO the fact that a
committee from the Bar Association rep
resented the prosecution and insisted that
Philbrook should be disbarred. The fact
that Philbrook offered no apology, but
both In his answer and in his argument set
forth that there was nothing Objectionable
in his brief, is commented upon.
The Objectionable parts of the said
brief" the opinion begins, "for viii ch Re-
spondent PhlbrOok was cited as afore-
said consist namely: First-Of offensive.
scandalous and contem ptuous language
concerning Hon. Ralph G. Harrison. one
0f Il N q IaAa of
of language contemptuous of ali the other
justices of the court, in that it broadly in
Inmates that they may be improperly in
fuenced in deciding said appeal and boldly
threatens them with evil consequences to
themselves If they should decide adversely
to the appellant. 1t also contains language
highly reprehenSible concerning the
learned Judge of the Superior Court who
heard and determined the said action at
nisi prius. and his answer contains such
language concerning another learned
Judge of the Superior Court who decided
the other cases mentioned in said Phil
brooks answer"
The OuinIOn goes on TO say that In 1890
Ralph G. Harrison, now Justice of the
Supreme Court, was practicing lawyer
at the San Francisco bar, and as such
during that year acted as an attorney for
Mr.. Raveey, executor of the estate of
John Levinson, deceased. On September
6, 1890, settlement was made by and be-
tween Executor Raveey and the New
mans. surviving partners of Levnson, at
which two papers were executed in the
handwriting of Justice Harrison and
signed by him as witness.
Articles of copartnership of the firm of
Newman & Levinson existed and were q
force when Levinson died. These pro-
vded, or pugported to provide, for the
disposition OF the firm property and bust
ness of either partner upon his death,
Philbrook was the attorney for certain
legatees of Leyinson. He thought that
the estate was entitled to a share of the
good will' of the firm, while Justice Har-
rlson was of the opinion that under the
articles OF c0partnership the estate of
Levinson had no interest in the good will.
but was entitled only to its share of the
partnership property. The opinion holds
that it is clear that this was the only diff
ference existing at the time of the settle
ment. and that this was pure question of
law.
"But," the opinion continues, ut hap
pened that few weeks before the said 9th