The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1901-1901, 1901-06-11
THE COURTS DIGNITY
CERTAINLY INVADED
Supreme Bench Calls a Great Falls
Attorney Down.

The following relation of the sad
finish of a case in the supreme court
indicates that Judge Milburn was
near at hand when the brief was read.
The judge is a stickler for official ETH
quette and appended remarks are sure
ly his. The occasion was found in the
case Of w. w. Cook against John A..
Cook involving water rights in Cho-
teau county, the court denies a re-
hearing and orders the brief of Ran
som Cooper of Great Falls stricken
from the files, on the ground that it is
disrespectful.
In the opinion of the court an exam
ination of the argument of appellants,
filed with the motion, discloses the
fact that the language and tone of the
brief are disrespectful to this court It
will be sufficient in this connection to
quote the following paragraphs from
the brief, to-wit:
Il realize that, compared with many
of the matters which draw so heavily
upon the time and attention of the
court, that this case is a small one.
1t is, however, large for the parties
interested, and it's correct solution
means as much or more to them as
the proper disposition of the great
cases means to the parties interested
in them.
ut is, of course, to be regretted that
the record is obscure in some parts,
but this does not relieve the court
from it's obligation to study the rec
ord and try to understand it.
will the court kindly point out
anywhere in the record, any evidence
which tends to overcome this prima
facie case made by the plaintiff
against himself.
Nov l don't believe, and I cannot
believe, that this court is ready to es-
tablish so absurd principle of equi-
ty Jurisprudence as to hold that when
the defendants had need of water and
there was abundance in the reservoir
and they could fill their bitches and
laterals and at the same time let the
main ditch run as full as it could get,
that they must stop the use of this
water SO as to let the plaintiff run
water uphill, because he was so shift
less that he would not put his ditch
to proper grade, and yet that is
just what this court does say in it's
opinion.
II don't believe that this court, with
it's eyes open, will perpetrate any such
outrage as this.
Il deny the legal or moral right of
this court to make the defendants as
sumo the burden of compromising the
plaintiff for that which has resulted
from his own fault, and the last quo
tation made above, from the courts
opinion, shows that it has undertaken
to do this very thing.
"The only inference possible or
proper to be drawn from this Ian.
guage is one that is not respectful"
says the court. The arguments con.
tanned in the brief of counsel are not
such as to convince this court that
there is any reason why brief dis
respectful in tone, as this is, should
be retained in the files and made the
subject of further consideration.
The brief is stricken from the files
and the clerk is directed to return it
to counsel for appellants. The motion
for re-hearing is denied"
Justice Pigott, in concurring, said:
Il concur with the majority of the
court in the order striking from the
files the arguments in the brief of
counsel for appellant on motion for
new trial. don't feel entirely salts.
fled with the judgment of affirmance,
and personally should not be averse to
hearing the case reargued."
A new and very pretty assortment