The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-28
PH|LBROOK'S PETITION,
The DiSbarred Attorney Asks
for a Rehearing of His
Case.
Quotations From Edmund Burke
Claimed as a Precedent for the
Language Used.

Attorney Horace w. Philbrook seeks q
disbarment by the Supreme Court. He has
filed what is designated as motion for
hearing of the cause" in the case entitled
Ira P. Rankin, special administrator of the
estate of John Levinson, deceased, plain
tiff, appellant VS.. William J. Newman and
Benjamin Newman, defendants, respond
ents. The papers have been served and
the 7th of October set for the hearing of the
motion.
This action brings Attorney Philbrook
again into court, despite the disbarment
verdict against him. He asks that his
motion be heard by the court in bank and
that the Commissioners be also present.
The motion was filed yesterday. 1t is
addressed to 'Reinstein & Eisner and E.
R. Taylor, their attorneys" 1t declares
that II shall apply to the Supreme Court
for leave to argue this cause and for hear
ing thereof, and that a certain judgment
be vacated which was made on the 9Th
day of January, 1895, in certain proceed
ing entitled, In the matter of Horace w.
Philbrook, an attorney at law"
In the latter clause of the petition is the
pith of the new proceeding, which in re-
ality asks that the judgment of disbar-
As to reasons the document says:
The grounds upon which said application
will be made, the appeals with which, in this
extraordinary case, l shall knock at the
breasts of the consclences of the court and de-
mand Justice against the wrong and outrage
and wickedness which are Appointment and i'm
portant part of the case, are the following:
The right of the appellant to argue this cause
and for q hearing is fundamental human
right; to deny such right is a violation of
natural justice, of the principles of the COM
mon law and of the constitution and laws of
this State and denial of the equal protection
of the laws.
Mr.. Philbrook makes no apology for
what the Supreme Court termed his in
temperate language against Justice Harri-
son. On the contrary, he rather reiterates
all that he said before in the brief which
led to his disbarment and he quotes
equally as vigorous language from noted
speech of Edmund Burke in the trial of
Warren Hastings before the House of
Lords as precedent which established his
right to speak as he did then.
Concerning the contention of the SUI
preme Court as announced in the disbar-
ment verdict against him ATTORNEY Phil
brook says that sit is utterly untrue
destitute of shadow of truth-that the
brief contained any such language as that
claimed by the Justices. But what if it
had p Further on the petition states:
The above disposes of the entire judgment of
disbarment, except six accusations, for which
the wronged attorney was never given notice
or opportunity of hearing, but which were
stated against him for the first time in the
judgment OF disbarment.
BY such Judgment, destitute of even a
shadow of justice, violative of the fundamental
principles of right, given and held without
answering single point or reason of the macy
points and reasons urged by the attorney in
his defense, the appellant in this case and a
helpless aged widow and her defenseless family
have been deprived of counsel, denied hear
Ing, proclamation made in advance by the
Justices that the case shall be decided against
them and for their adversaries an attorney
deprived OF his means of livelihood and over
whelmed with calumny for fidelity to his duty.
In conclusion, Mr.. Philbrook declares
that this suit is carried on solely to obtain
Justice for the surviving family Of John
Levinson from the misfortunes
which they have innocently suffered
through the fraud, treachery and the
cruelty. OF the respondents and their accom-
plices."