The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-14


ment, all the contested actions We're
on Monday, April 4th, 1904, ooatinued
by consent except a few divorce cases
where no attorney appeared for the
defendant There We're 1876 cases on
the trial docket.
]. :. PARKER.
Sworn to and subs crip2d before me
this April 10th, 1904.
TT. FLYTHE
On this the judge makes the follow.
ing ruling:
North Carolina-Cumbaclau Co.
Superior Court
In the matter of n. A. Mclean, ESD;
B. F. Mclean. Esl,, stephen Nc
Intire, Esq: A. w. Mclean, Esq;
John H. Cook, Esq; r: J. Britt,
Esq; r. B. Morrison, Esd, Wade
Wishart, Esq. r. c. Lawrence,
Esq; r. E. Lee, Esq; and j. ,, Me-
Cormick, Esq.
On reading and considering the af-
fidavit of j. A. Parker, dated April
16, 1904, and hereto attached the
undersigned finds as fact that the
same makes out prima facie case of
contempt against each of the above
named parties except j. G. McCor-
mick, and that his name was left out
of said affidavit by mistake. The un-
| dersigned also finds that on the 21st
of March, 1904, all of said parties
were. and are now, licensed attorneys
at law engaged in the practice of law
in the courts Of Robson county.
1t is considered ordered and adj
judged that each of the above named
attorneys be and appear before the
undersigned at the court house in
Fayetteville, on Saturday, the 18th
day of May, 1904, and show cause, if
any he has, why he should not be at
tached and punished as for contempt
of court. Each one will be required
to file separate answer and besides
the matters contained in said affida-
vite, answer the following interroga-
tories, to-Wit:
1. From whom and what reports
of unfairness, partiality and discourte-
sy had been received from other coun-
ties in which the undersigned had
| held courts?
2. What specific act of unfairness,
or partiality in the trial of the Hay
wood case had he heard had been
| charged against the undersigned and
| how charge was made?
8. What act of discourtesy to coun-
sci in the trial of said action and to
whom extended?
4. What part, if any. he took in pre-
pairing or sending to the Wilmington
| Messenger in reply to the letter of
Iredell Meares Esq, defending Judge
Peebles telegram in the following
words and figures, to-wit
'Lumberton, N. c., April 2, 1904
''To the Wilmington Messenger, Will
mington, n. c.:
''As the people of the 9Th judicial
District seem unwilling ta-hn rn-
ed by the notions of sn. Iredell
! ha
seems improper) to obtrude them
upon the 7th Judicial District. When
the bar of Robson county need the
| advice of Mr.. Meares they will polite
| ly inform him of the fact, but unless
he has better luck in convincing us
than he has had with his countymen
and near neighbors, the outlook is
poor Who made him Censor Morum
Who asked him to dictate to the law
| yerS of Robson county what their
duties were with reference to Judge
PEBBLES or any other person or Of
fetal? Why does he take to himself
superior knowledge of either ethics
or law? Why does he come into a
controversy in which his opinions
were neither sought nor desired? We
think we know our rights, but if in
the meantime there should be such a
paucity of intellect among us as de-
mands that we should call upon some
one for advice we shall at least re-
serve the right to select our own coun-
| sellors. In such a contingency, Mr.
Meares may be selected and then
again he may not be. Till then lei
him confine his efforts to New Han
over and Brunswick"
"MEMBERS OF THE BAR"
| 3. Was not the fact that Judge
| PEBBLES refused to wait longer than
ten minutes for Mr.. N. A. Mclean t
/ come into court at Bladen Court when
he had two good lawyers associated
with him, the real cause of the action
of the Robson county lawyers?
The order to the sheriff is couched