The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1904-06-11
Fierce
Attorney johnson is
Cited for Contempt
for Brief Roast

The brief Of Attorney Johnson in the
case Of c. j. Lindefman vs.. ]. T. No
san. which caused the supreme court
70 order Il be stricken from the files
witb orders that citation be issued
directing Johnson TO appear before
the court August 3 and show cause
why he should not be punished for
contempt Of court and suspended as
an attorney. is as follows:
This is a suit ON certain promissory
notes alleged by the plaintiff in error
60 have been materially altered since
their execution and delivery by insert.
ing an attorneys fee OF ten dollars
in each without his consent.
Al the March. 1908, term Of district
court OF Noble county, Okla. the
cause was tried 10 jury and vcr-
dict rendered in favor Of the plalntin
dn error which verdict was vacated
by the court on motion Of the defend
ant in error. and at the calling Of the
docket at the December 1908. term
of said court. said cause was set for
trial for the 14lh day Of the same
month (52)-for convenience will
cite the pages of the record as above
which means page SO OF the record to
which attention is called) and the
attorney OF the plaintiff in error at
tended court each day. TO and includ-
ing the 18th day of said month for
che purpose OF trying said cause when
II might be reached for trial In the |
order in which II stood on the trial
docket and in the order for which
was set. and on the said date four
other cases stood for trial ahead OF
this cause i53) and about ten o'clock, |
a m, said attorney left the court
room not to exceed twenty minutes
(62l for the purpose of informing the
plaintiff in error to be ready for trial |
at minutes call. and when he re-
eurned to the court roomr--lo and be
hold The court had skipped the four
other cases as soon as said attorney
aeft the court room. and had taken
zap this case in his absence, empanel
and instructed a jury to return YER
dict in favor of the defendant in err
Sor t46) Whereupon the plaintiff in
error and his attorney appeared upon
the scene and begged that they be
permitted to offer the evidence of the
Plaintiff in error (54) for the CT
atioh Of the Jury, but nay, verify thou
shalt mott was the effect of the tris
Judges answer. so the jury was lef
with nothing TO do but TO follow the
instructions of the court and render
a verdict against the plaintiff in
rOr. upon which the judgment OF tn
court was rendered. The plaintiff f.
error iiled his motion for new tric
Gel TO 5s) which was promptly over
ruled by the court--leaying the pla
tiu nerror nothing but his exceptions
and appeal to this court
Brief and Argument
The hrst assignment Of error is the
order OF the court oyerrullng the mo- I
lion for a new trial of the plaintll ,
IN error but as its consideration Gov ]
ers ali the others we can best oonsid-
er il by considering the others In their ,
order, the first of which is as follows: I
2. Said court erred in sustaining a
,he motion OF the defendant in error t
Tor a new trial. s
This Is the order from which the q
plaintin in error attempted to appeal. t
bat was refused the right by the trial t
Judge. giving as his reason therefor {