The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-05-05
CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT
Five Charleston Lawyers in Danger
of Being Disbarred.

of Being Disbarred.
The contempt proceedings issued by
Judge Benet last week against five
promint lawyers in Charleston have
attracted much attention, and the case
Is causing much interest in conse-
quence of its unusual character and
the prominence of the men against
whom the order was Issued. 1t will be
remembered that certain security
holders applied for receiver for the
Palmetto brewery. The order to show
cause was issued on December 31st,
1898, and while the return to it was
still! pending. the majority security
holders went before the United States
Court and had receiver appointed.
subsequently Judge Benet issued an
order against those security holders,
demanding that they show cause why
they should not be ruled for contempt
The case was heard, argument was
made and the decision was reserved.
1t had never been delivered, but on
the oath ult. the Judge filed another
order requiring the attorneys in the
case, among when are H. A. Nj. Smith,
Julian Mitchell, j. N. Nathans, Huger
Sinkler, and James Simons, some of
the leading members Of the Charleston
bar, to show cause why they shall not
be disbarred, temporarily, or other
wise punished for contempt, inasmuch
as all of them had knowledge of the
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 Benet is disposed to con-
slider the action of the attorneys con-
tempt.
The Charleston Sun gives the fol-
lowing statement of the case. The
rule is made returnable on the 4th OF
May:
Certain stockholders of the Palmetto
brewery company, dissatisfied with the
condition of it's affairs and with the
manner in which they were admins
tered by President Doscher, applied to
the State court for injunction and the
appointment of a receiver.
The injunction was issued by Judge
Benet and the jurisdiction of the court
thrown around the property in dispute
between the stockholders, but the nomi-
nation of q receiver, for some, reason,
was deferred Pending this suspense
the De La Vergne refrigerating COM
pany, foreign corporation and credi-
tor of the Palmetto brewing company,
through it's solicitor, Mr.. J. N. Nathans,
filed bill in the United States circuit
ment OF receiver by that court In the
interest Of his clients. MIR. Nathans,
rs director in 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 new
proceedings in another court to set
aside tho authority of the court and
oust it of its jurisdiction.
Whether this view of professional
etiquette presented itself to Mr..
Nathans or not, we, of course, do not
know. 1t has become 80 common of
recent years to appeal to the Federal
jurisdiction to nullify or overrule the
authority of the State court, and the
lines of demarkation between the
Jurisdiction of these coordinate courts
have been 80 confused by the rapid
strides of encroachment of the CEN
tralized 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 confederated govern
ment might we'll lose sight OF these
nice distinctions OF professional duty
and observance.
| no poiloi "hiCu, we are dWdre, OU-
tains among some familiar with the
circumstances, and which may have
gained some credence with the presid d.
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 tC
him of the jurisdiction already taken
OF the matter by the State court may
have had it's influence in impelline
Judge Benet to the strong course
pursued by him in this matter.