The record-union., 1895-01-08
A LAWYER PUNISHED.
The PhiIbrOok Contempt Case De-
ciSion.
The Full Text of the Supreme Courts
Opinion-The Limits of an At
torney's Privilege.

Following is the full text of the decision
of the Supreme Court in the matter OF
the proceedings in the contempt case
against Attorney Horace w. Philbrook
1t will be read with interest by all inter
ested in upholding the dignity of the
courts:
In the Supreme Court-In Bank. Filed
In the matter OF Horace w. Philbrook.
BY THE COURT.
Horace w. Philbrook, a licensed attorney,
having filed in this court a certain brief IN
Which he appeared to have violated his duty
as an attorney, was cited to appear before the
court on the 18th day of December A. ID.
1854, at 10 O'Clock a. NJ, to show cause why
ne should not be removed from his office as
al attorney-at-law and debarred from further
practlcing law before the courts of this State.
The citation was served on him ten days
previous TO said December 18th. on SAID
day he appeared and he did not ask any
continuance, but announced himself ready,
the hatter was proceeded with. A committee
from the Bar ASSOCIATION of san Francisco re-
queSted to be allowed TO appear stfor the pur-
pose OF seeing that said matter is properly
presented" and their request was granted.
Ine respondent, Philbrook, filed written
answer TO the citation, and he was allowed 10
make an oral argument in his own defense
Without restriction OF time, his argument
occupying The greater part of two days. The
committee of the Bar Association argued that
he should be disharred. In the citation atten-
ton was called to certain pages of the brief
which contained the Objectionable matter, and
part OF IL was quoted. The respondent did
not offer any apology or make any excuse,
out IN hlS written answer, and in his oral
argument, he boldly contended that his briet
was unobjectionable and contained nothing
Which he had not the right to put there. His
argument was, Tor the most part, q reiteration
OF the assertions and language OF the brief.
The brief in question was Med by said Phil
brook as attorney for the appellant in GER
tam action now pending here on appeal, No.
l0,3o7, entitled Rankin, special admins
traitor of the estate of John Levinson de-
ceased, plaintiff and appellant, VS.. William
y. Newman and Benjamin Newman, defend
had. in his lifetime, been u copartner
with the said NeWmans under the firm name
OF Newman 81 IeVinson; and said action
grew out OF difference abIut the settle
ment OF The business and the affairs OF The
partnership, and decided by the trial
court IN favor of the Newmans a motion
Tor new trial had been made by PhilbroOk s
client in the trial court, and had been there
denied, ana the appeal was taken from the
order denying the motion for new trial.
Tins appeal has not been argued or submitted
IN this court and its merits are not before US;
although the transcript in the case and also
the transcripts in Two other appeals be-
tween tue same parties, in which the New
mans we're also successful in the trial court,
are made parts of the said PhIlbrook's an
swer in lnIs p esent proceeding.
Tine objectionable parts OF the said brief for
which respondent Philprook was cited as
aforesaid consist mainly, first, OF offensive
aGdaous and contemptuous language con-
corning lion. Ralph c. Harrison, one OF the
justices OF this court in that it broadly inti-
mates That they may be Improperly lntiu-
enced in deciding said appeal, and boldly
threatens them with evil consequences to
themselves if they should decide the appeal
advers ely TO the appellant. 1t also contains
language highly reprehenSible concerning the
learned Judge OF the Superior Court who
heard and determined the said action niSj
TrttGS, and his answer contains such language
concerning another learned Judge of the Su-
periOr Court who decided the other cases men
toned in said Philbrook's answer.
During the year y. d. 1890, the Hon. Ralph
{. harrison, now Justice OF this court was,
and TOR many years prior thereto had been, a
practIcing lawyer at the San Francisco Bar;
and during nearly all OF that year he was the
attorney of one RaYeley, executor of said
John Levlnson, deceased, mentioned. on the
9th cay of September OF the year (lSgOl a
settlement was made by and between the said
executor RaYeiey aud the surviving partners
the said Newmans, at which two certain
paper writings we're executed which were in
tn handwriting of Justice Harrison, and
signed by HIM as "A witness.
There were articles OF copartnership of the
said firm of Newman d Levinson, existing
and in force. at tie time OF the death OF Lev
lnson, which provided or at least purported
to provide for the disposition OF tne interest
in the firm property and business OF either
partner upon ms death. AT that time, and
prior thereto the respondent here, PhiiDrook
was the attorney Tor certain legatees of said
Levinson; and it appears that Philbrook
thought that the estate was entitled to a share
OF tine good wIl' OF the said firm, while Jus-
tice Harrison was OF the opinion that under
the said articles of copartnership the estate OF
LeyinSon had no interest in the good will,
but was entitled only to Its share OF the part
nerShip pro- erty, 10 be ascertained as pro-
Nided in said articles. 1t is clear that this
was the only point o. difference existing at
the time OF said settlement. 1t was pure
question of law as to which it was the duty OF
Justice Harrison TO advise his clent-the ex.
ecutor-according to his best judgment.
tFNf hoy ffNaf flTN I.fs~ IL
said 9th OF September Justice Harrison had
been nominated by one OF the two leading
and nearIy equally powerful political parties
OF the state as a candidate for the Office of
Associate Justice OF the Supreme Court, and
upon this circumstance res pondent Philbrook
has built up in his immagination gigantic
conspiracy, which, he contends. gives MIN the
right, under the claim OF free argument, to
aSSail Justice Harrison. while a member of
this court by every offensive epithet which
his somewhat wide vocabulary supplies. and
10 aScrlbe to him the vileSt motives and con-
duct. He assumes and asserts that Justice
HARRISON, his client, .Raveley. the Newmans
and their attorneys, Reinstein and Eisner
entered into a conspiracy to do a wrong which
conspiracy was founded upon the conSidera-
tions that the former had been nominated as
Il candidate fer Justice of this court, that he
was practically sure of election, and that If he
Should draw up said paper writings and wit.
ness them. any Superior Judge before whom
any litigation concerning the matter might
come would be deferred from doing right by
the knowledge that one OF the onspirators
a j
upon appeal The other justices OF this court
would be swerved from their duty because
one OF the alleged conspiratOrs would be asso-
ciated with them the bench. And il is
contended that on account OF this imagi-
nary state of facts founded on no evidence
respondent had free rein to indulge in what
ever insulting and contemptuous language
his fancy may conjure up concerning a JUS
tice OF this court.
1t is impractcable to here reproduce any
considerable amount OF the language used in
a pNV
Having characterized Justice Harrison as
one OF the chief conspirators, he denounces
what he calls the ''secret transaction of Sep
tember 9TH" as this most impudent and un-
Epeakably wicked scheme" Having said
There they all were, Ralph c. Harrison
Milton ). Eisner, William j. Newman. Ben
jamn Newman, and Executor Raveley, Sc
crctly assembled solely by reason OF the fact
that Ralph c. Harrison was about to become
Justice of the Supreme Court etc, he asks:
could a more Vlllainous deed than that be
conceived?" He speaks OF Justice Harrison
and the others as corrupt, depraved, and
wicked persons, and OF the former as par
ticjpS cTjDsiaiS." And again he says, at was
done criminaly. And ii was necessary to
the scheme that Ralph C. Harrison should
become q Justice OF the Supreme Court"
Again, he says that ''every man present at
That secret transaction OF Saturday, Septem-
ber q, 1890, knew what they were all about;
knew that he was participant In one OF the
foulest and blackest Of crimes; that he was
helping plant dagger for the breast of just
Ice Again, speaking OF that transaction, he
asks, "jan IL be that we shall Ind IN II a clew
TO the secret of supreme success, the very
crown of success, In the practice OF the law +? )
ana again, why expect men 10 wear them
selves out with the Incorporate study of law
books as they have hitherto been written
when there IS open the easier, surer, and
more profitable field of low cunning by
which helpless women and fatheresS chill
dren may be betrayed, robbed and made out
laws by one single stroke?" Again he asks
how far matters have gone when
so vile scheme is contrived TO Dervert the
courts; When it raises its head openly, plants