The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-10-22
Supreme Court Severely Lectures
Offending Lawyers.
INSULTED JUDGE HIGGINS
OBJECTIONABLE MATTER IN
BRIEF STRICKEN OUT.
A Sample of the Abusive Language
Supreme Court Comments Upon
It and Declares Practice Must
Stop-case Is, However, Remand
ed For Supplemental Decree.

That NItuQer3 ton and lnNectINe oc-
casionally may creep into printed
pleadings before the bar of justice is
not strange. but the state supreme
court has declared that the use of dis
respectful language toward a lower
court shall not be tolerated. In the
case at bar the Objectionable matter
has been ordered stricken from the
court files, and with the order the at
tcTneys who offended the court We're
given a severe lecture.
The offense WAS noticed yesterday in
an opinion written by Justice Basizin,
and copcurred in by Justices Bartch
and Miner, in the case OF the Nephi
Irrigation company. plaintiff and re-
sponGent, We. Samuel I. Nickers, de-
PENDANT and appellant.
The Objectionable Language.
The matter objected to is in the
printed brief of appellant. whose at
toTneys are King, Burton &c Kin. and
Grant G. Bagley. All through the Grief
are references to the triad court. pre-
sided over by Judge Higgins, to which
the supreme justices take pointed ex-
ception, but the most fragrant offense
is said to be found in the following
paragraph:
Then comes the testimony of Carter
eaiAA AANAAsoB wiz WO0lQ nave luEEIIl ldllQ
fuTrowed thirteen or fourteen inches
deep, that it might be economically ir-
rigated- Think of this wonderful prop
osltion. Men who would propose such
an absurd and ridiculous thing are not
entitled to the respect of the lowest in
dividual in the commonwealth, let alone
to the confidence OF a. court Of Justice
FROM their testimony it is plain that
the truth is not in them, and they. act
uated simply by the desire to rob this
poor man of a little water needed to
mature his crop. were willing to go be-
fore a court Of justice nd swear away
a man S property and his rights TO its
Use. And yet this testimony appealed
TO the court, and while it tended to
rob the defendant OF his property, it
seemed that the court did not possess
sufficient knowledge Of The methods of
irrigation prevailing in this state to
detect the willful Misrepresentation of
these designing witnesses, and took
their lying testimony as a basis for the
most absurd decree ever rendered in
any court in this or any other state
Their answers IRE pure guesses
or worse than guesSes, and upon these
guesses the court guessed at tho de-
cree"
Attorneys Lectured By the Court
Commenting upon these references,
the supreme courts opinion states:
Counsel for appellant have used
language in their brief which reflects
upon the trial court, the improperly
of which is So fragrant that Ne cannot
pass ii by without notice
"NituperaGionS have no legitimate
place in a legal argument. The pur-
pose OF briefs is to inform the court
what the points are. and by arguments
on the facts and the law to eniighten
Tho i,,rr u
in the litigation, so that the court may
be assisted thereby in the decision of
the case. InvectiVeS are not arguments
Their use in a brief does E.ot in the
les degree aid the court in arriving
at just conclusions, but only tends to
create diScord.
The use or the language referred to
is not respectful TO this court, because
it is not entitled to any weight as argu-
ment, and, as counsel well know, does
not in the least degree aid the court.
and is disrespectful and insulting to
the court below. Such practice cannot
be tolerated. and had our attention
been called to it during the course of
the oral argument We would not have
permitted counsel TO proceed and would
then have ordered the brief to be strick-
en- from the files.
Brief Thrown Out.
1t is ordered that the supplemental
findings and decree be set aside. with
directions TO the court below to permit
the parties to introduce additional evil
dence with a view of aScertafning more
definitely the rights of the parties in
the particulars mentioned in the previ-
Gus order relnanding the case; that the
respondent pay the costs. and that the
brief containing the objectionable mat
ter referred 10 in the opinion be strick-
en- from the files Of this court"
Review of the Case.
This case was originally tried in 1896.
and later, or appeal to the supreme
court. it was remanded to Judge Hig-
gins TO determine by evidence the exact
number of second feet or fractional
parts of the stream from Hop creek
and from Rock springs to which de
PENDANT was entitled in irrigating sea-
sons for his thirty-one acres of land
and for domestic purposes. In accord
ance with the mandate the lower court
rendered a supplemental decree. but
the defendant appealed again, alleging
that the courts findings were not F5ar-
ranted by the evidence. The supreme
court yesterday held from a review OF
the case that VickeTS is entitled to
water for a longer period than is spec
ified in the supplemental decree.
Warner 81 HoutZ are attorneys for
the plaintiff and respondent, the Nephi