The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-02-16


niced without pulling down the other.
And when an attorney in a ju-
0lcial proceeding or otherwise, for the
purpose Of showing his c0uteu0pt and ID
VIII FOR a judicial officer wlifully
makes false 9nd defamatOTy charges.
criminal in character. OF official miscon-
duct against such officer, which tend
20 humiiiate and disgrace him and
bring INTO contempt the court
OF which he Is q member. such attor-
rey not only becomes a reproach 10 his
profession but menace to the dignity
Of the court, and thereby binders and
obsTucts the administration Of justice"
Justice 4IcCarty says ne does not
claim that q judge cannot be a party
10 an action or proceeding. or that he
cannot be sued direct on matters re-
lating to his private transactions. but
holds that attorneys "canEot be per-
nlitted TO use the privilege thus oc-
corded them as a shield 10 protect
themselves in making false, scandalous
and defamatOTy charges against a court
or judicial officer for the sole
purpose of scandalizing and disgraeing
the party at whom they are directed"
Accepts Bowman's Plea.
In view of the fact that Attorney
Bowman had nothing 10 co with the
preparation of the case in question. ard
the manly and dignifed tone Of his
answer the court accepts his plea and
the decision disDOseS Of his case. But
Attorney Wilkins. the opinion says.
stands in an entirely different light
Accepting as true his statement in his
answer, that he believed the accusa-
tions of his client against Justice
Bartch were true when ne drew up the
papers. Justice McCarty says be mus
have known they were false before the
trial Of the case ended. Because OF At
t0rnev wilkins Intelligence and ex-
perience at the bar" his explanation is
rot accepted when he says he thought
the charges to be material and relevant
10 the case. II is taken as d plea in
bad faith. adding
Therefore his conduct cannot be too
strongly condemned. But ia difference
TO the position Of the bar as outlined
by the members of the committee who
have appeared in the case, and the al
legations in his answer that ne inserted
the scandalOus matter referred 10 IN
Shows answer on the assurance Of
Snow that they were true. the case
against him is also dismissed"
Commenting upon Attorney Shows
position, the opinion says he was not
misled or deceived by any statement OF
others. and he does not claim that there
was any fact or circumstance that JUS
titled the slightest suspicion of official
misconduct on the part of Justice
Bartch. The Offense of Attorney Snow
Is so grave, the opinion continues, that
the court could disbsr him for kfe- but
90 90 so is 10 infict upon him a pun
ishment Of the severest character. It
would be the same as taking his capital
from him, and might bring poverty
upon himself and restitution upon his
FSul.iV.
Chief. Justice Baskin Dissents.
But the opinion SAYS that transgres-
siOnS in the future viii be visited with
severe consequences. and that the
lenity shown in this case must not
be regarded as precedent by which
the court viii be governed hereafter IN
dealing with a like O1fense.
Chief Justice BEskin takes the stand
that the defense of Attorney Snow
constituted no defense TO The action
and furnished no basis for any relief
whatever Their irreley0ncy is so ap-
parent and their natural tendency so
injurious as to utterly exclude the idea
that they were made through ignorance
of their 1rrelevancy or fer the purpose
Of asserting any right
He takes A similar view of the case
of Attorney Wilkins adding that In his
estimation both should be barred for
life. But he COncUTs in the opinion OF
Justice NcCarty in 50 much Of the or
der made in the matter as relates to
Attorney Bowman. Notwithstanding ne
IS ceusurabIe for permitting his name to
be used as attorney in the answer of
snow and in the appellants brief. s 80