The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1905-07-14
DISBARMENT
PROCEEDINGS
Judge Higgins Decides I'm
portant Questions
Involved.

! Fayetteville, Tenn, July Elm the
case OF State VS.. John l.. Jones, q
member of the Columbia bar. Involv-
ing disbarment proceedings aRains:
defendant by Judge Holding as relatoI.
Judge Joseph G. Higgins sitting by
interchange with Judge Holding, passed
upon some very important and interest
ing questions OF law. Judge Higgins
decided the case IN a written opinion
delivered at chambers in Fayetteville
by agreement The two main ques-
tiOns we're brought out upon motions
TO compel the relator, Judge Holding,
to make bond for costs. and 10 strike
out certain charges on account OF being
barred by the general statute of hmi-
tatlons OF ten years.
Judge Higgins disalloweG the motion
to require bond for costs in the follow
ing language: For the reason that
this is an action set on foot by the
judge of the circuit, as judicial act
for the benefit of the public. 1t is an
action in the nature of a contempt and
in no sense does il assume the aspect
of pecunlaIy action. 1t would, there
fore, be inconsistent with the nature
of this proceeding, and out of harmony
with the spirit of independence that
would govern the court in these mat
tiers to require bond tor costs. There
is no doubt but that the court when it
assumes to act In these species of cases
does so as the representative of the
state and the people, and 1T is ju-
dicial function that from time I'M
memorial it has been held to be free
from any embarrassment OF impedi-
ment other than great caution in its
exercise.
THE motion to strike the Septem-
Der, 1904, charges from the files be-
cause stale and because barred by the
statute of Limitations IS dIsallowed for
the reason that from the very nature
of this proceeding there could not be
asceItained anyssdetinite point of time
from which the bar against misbe
havior on the part of the attorney
could begin to run. tor the reason that
charges preferred grew out of long
series of acts of unpIofessional con-
duct. Again 1t is my opinion that
this is not an action In the sense of the
statute of limitations,
The motion to strike the September
term, 1904. charges from the files be-
this motion will be sustained, unless
said charges are supported, either by
the affidavit of one of the attorneys
representing the state. or by Judge
Holding. These additional charges are
by amendment incorporated in origi
nal charges and the two shall stand as
the reasons for invoking the jurisdic-
ton of the court to disbaT the defend
ant. The proceedings in this case are
to be prescribed and regulated by the
court trying the cause, and the court
is at liberty to pursue any reasonable
method in hearing and determining
this matter, provided the defendant
be given fair opportunity to defend
himself.
1T will, of course, be understood
that if charges against an attorney are
instituted maliciously and fIivolously,
for the purpose of procuring his dis
barment, the party setting on foot
these charges could be taxed with
costs; but where the charges arc
brought In good faith, the one insti-
tuting the proceedings should not be
by the fear of judgment
for costs, especially when the party is
the court that is seeking to redress
against an unworthy member and
officer of the court. 1t will also be
that lapse of the time
lnuIes to the benefit of the defendant,
provided his course since the commits
Ison of the previous wrong has been /
that OF an upright attorney otherwise, /
if he has not demeaned himself as |
of the high and honorable |
profession of the law should"