The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-03

these tribunals If ius..:c or the sup
port and Drese.N arioc Of their respcc.
liability and independence; it has ex-
listed from the ear..- :. u.'ioi tc who h
the annals of iufi prudence entend;
and. except In a lew cases If party ylo-
ience, it has been sanctioned and es-
tablished by the experience of ages.
Lord Mayor of Londons case. 8 Will
SOL. 1888; opinion o. Kent, G. j. in
the case of Yates, Johns, 81; John
son v. The Commonwealth l Bibt 59s.
At page 206 of Weeks on ATTORNEYS.
I'd edition it IS said:
Language may be contemptuous
w.ether written or spoken; and if in
J the presence of the court. notice is
not essential before punishment. and
scandalous and insulting matter in a
/ petition for rehearing is equivalent
TO the commission in open court of an
act constituting a contempt. When
the language is capable Of explana-
ton, and is explained, the proceedings
must be discontinued: but where it
4 IS offensive and insulting per Sc, the
dISaEowal of an intention to commit
a contempt may tend to excuse, but
cannot justify the act From an omen
notorious and public insult to a court
for which an attorney contunaciouslv
refused IN any way to atone. he was
nned for contempt, and his authority
70 practice revoked
j Other authorities in line with these
we have mentioned are cited in the
note to re Cary 10 Fed. So, and in
3 Cyc. t. 20, where it is said that
contempt may be committed by in
sorting in pleadings. briefs. motions.
arguments. petitions for rehearing or
other papers fled in court insulting
or contemptuous language. rejecting
on the integrity Of the court.
BY using the objectionable language
stated respondent became guilty of a
contempt which no construction of
the words can excuse or purge. His
disclaimer Of an Intentional diernS-
poet TO the court may nalliate Int
cannot justify & charge u!.!ah under
any explanation cannot be construed
Otherwise than as reflect ng on the in.
teligence and motives of the court
and which could scarcely have been
made for any other purpose unless to
intiridate OF Improperly influence our
decision.
AS we have seen. attorneys have
been severely punished for using Ian
Suage in many Instances nor so ron.
rehenslole, but IN view of the disa-
vowal in open court we have conclud
ed not to impose penalty so harsh
as disbarment or suspension from
practice. or fine or imprisonment.
Nor do we forse- that On prrscribi. 6
as3Irst the miscor l;lc- Of attorney:
litgants ought rot to be punished a
prevented from rain+arnng in the
case all petitions, pleadings. and pa
pers essential TO the preservation ant
enforcement of their rights.
It IS ordered that the offensive net
iilon be stricken from the files thai
respondent stand reorimanded anr
warned, and that he pay the costs a
this proceeding.
an attempt to shield its receiver anc
his attorneys from an investigation
of charges of gross misconduct in OF
hce and containing the statement INA
We must decline to assume the
functions Of a grand jury. or attemp,
to perform the duty of the court in
investigating the conduct Of its off
GERS. was held to be contemptuous
211 P. $40.
In re Terry. So Fed 419 an extreme
case. for charging the court with hav
Court deemed the language contempt
uous. the said language be stricken
out of his petition.
Respondent not only contended and
said that he had no intention to be
dlsrespectful or contemptuous. but he
also earnestly contended that the Ian
guage charged against him and which
ing was based, was. in my opinion
contemptuous: and moved that il the
he admitted having used was not dis
oath to faithfully discharge the du.
ties Of an attorney ana councelcr y
Surely sucn course as was taken in
this case is not in compliance W.
! that duty In Friedlander v. Sumner
G. 4 S. NJ. Co., 81 cal. III. The cour,
! said:
If unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget himself
as willfully to employ Language mani
testify disrespectful to the judge of the
4 superior cOurt-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem it our duty
to treat such conduct as contempt O
this court. and to proceed according
ly: and the briefs of the case were
ordered to be STRICKEN from the flies
In L. 5. V. Late CORPORATION of
Church Of Jesus Chtist Of Later Ia:
4 Sairts. language used in The petition
warned. and hat he pay the costs OF
-O-O