The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1896-05-07
CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT.
Five Charleston Lawyers in Danger
OF BcinG DiSbarred.

OF BCihE DiSDarreu.
The contempt proceedings issued by
Judge Bcnct last week against five
promint lawyers in Charleston have
attracted much attention, and the case
Is causing much interest in consc-
qucncc OF it's unusual character and
tho prominence Of the men against
whom the order was issued. 1t will be
remembered that certain security
holders applied for u receiver for the
Palmetto brewery. The order to show
cause was issued on December 3lst,
1898, and while tho return to it was
still pending the majority security
holders wont before tho United States
Court and had IL receiver appointed.
Subsequently Judge Bcnct issued an
order against those security holders,
demanding that they show cause why
they should not DO ruled for contempt.
Ihe case was heard, argument was
made and tho decision was reserved.
1t had nevcr boon delivered, but on
the 24th ult. the Judge filed another
order requiring tho attorneys in the
| case, among whom arc II. a. M. Smith,
Julian Mitchell, j. n. Nathans, Huger
Slnklcr, aud james SimOns, some OF
tho leading members OF the Charleston
bar, to show cause why they shall not
| be dlsbarrcd, temporarily, or other
wise punished for contempt, inasmuch
as all OF them had knowledge of tho
action pending in the State court
when they took their case into the
| United States Court. The tenor OF
| the order is such as would Indicate
that Judge Bcnct is disposed to con
slider the action Of tho attorneys con-
| tempt.
The Charleston Sun gives tho fol-
lowing statement OF the case. Tho
rule is made rcturnable on tho .lth OF
May:
Certain stockholders Of the Palmetto
brewery company, dissatisfied with the
condition of it's affairs and with the
manner in which they wcrc admins
tered by President Doschcr, applied to
tho State court for injunction and the
appointment OF n receiver.
Tho Injunction was issued by Judge
Benct and the jurisdiction of the court
thrown around the property in dispute
hetwecn the stockholders, but the nomi-
nation OF u receiver, for some, reason,
was deferred. Ponding this suspense
the Dc La Vcrgno rcfrigorating com
pany, q foreign corporation and credi-
tor OF tho Palmetto brewing company,
through it's solicitor, Mr.. j. n. Nathans,
filed ~ bill in the United States circuit
court for injunction and tho appoint
mont OF receiver by that court in the
| interest OF his clients. Mr.. Nnthans,
as director in Il defendant bank
which was party to the proceeding
In the State court, is evidently deemed
by the presiding Judge of that court
to have been stopped as an attorney OF
the court from disregarding the courts
| restraining order and initiating now
proceedings in another court TO set
aside the authority Of the court and
GUST it Of its jurisdiction.
Whether this Wow OF professional
etiquette presented itsclf to Mr..
Nathans or not, we, of course, do not
know. 1t has become SO common OF
recent years to appeal to the Federal
jurisdiction to nullify or ovcrrule the
authority OF tho State court, and the
lines OF dcmarkatiOn between the
jurisdiction OF these coordinate courts
havo bccn 80 confused by tho rapid
strides OF CnCrOachment Of tho cen
traliZcd power on the sovereignty OF
the States, that lawyer intent on the
interest OF his clients rather than on
maintaining intact the fundamental
principles OF our cOnfcderatcd govern
mcnt might we'll lose sight OF those
nice distinctions OF professional duty
and observance.
The belief which, we arc aware, OBJ
talns among some familiar with the
circumstances, and which may have
gained some Crcdcncc with the Drcsd.
ing judge OF the Charleston district
that the petition for Injunction and
receiver was presented to and acted
on by Judge Simonton OF the United
States circuit court without notice &c
him OF tho jurisdiction already taken
OF tho matter by tho State court may
have had its influence in impclling
Judge Benct to the strong course
pursued by him in this matter.