The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-04

these tribunals # ins.:c or the sup
port and Drese. v tio2 of their respec.
liability and independence; it has ex-
listed from the ear,.- :. r>'ioi t. which
the annals OF jufi, prudence eGtend:
and, except in a few cases Of marty ylo-
lence, it has been sanctioned and es-
tablished by the experience of sges.'
Lord Mayor of London's case, 3 vii.
SOL, 1888; opinion o. Kent Z. j.. in
the case of Yates. Johns. 3l7: John
son v. The Commonwealth / Bibb sos
At page FOG of Weeks on Attorneys.
I'd edition it IS said:
Language may be contemptuous
w-Iether written or spoken; and if in
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
/ IS offensive and insulting per Sc, the
dlsavowal of an intention to commit
contempt may tend to excuse. but
cannot justify the act From an omen.
notorious and public insult to a court
for which an attorney contumaciousIy
refused in any way to atone, he was
lined for contempt, and his authority
to practice revoked"
Other authorities in line with these
we have mentioned are cited in the
note to re Cary, 10 Fed 63z and in
8 Cyc. t. 90. where it is said that
contempt may be committed by in
sorting in pleadings, briefs, motions.
arguments. petitions for rehearing or
other papers filed in court insulting
or contemptuous language. rejecting
on the integrity Of the court
By using he Objectionable language
stated respondent became guilty of a
contempt which no construction of
the words can excuse or purge His
disclaimer OF an Intentional disres-
pect to the court may palliate but
cannot justify q charge which unGor
any explanation cannot be construed
otherwise than as rejecting on the in
teligence and motives of the court,
and which could scarcely have been
made for any other purpose unless to
intinidate Or Improperly influence our
decision
As we have seen, attorneys have
! been severely punished for using Ian.
suage in many instances not so rep.
rehensiale, but IN view of the disa
vOWal in open court We have conclud.
cd not to impose a penalty so harsh
as dlsbarment or suspension from
! practice, or fine or i'm prisOnment
! Nor do we forget that on prescribi;
no v,tc ~
litlgants ought ros to be punished G.,
prevented from a.ainta,ning in tle
case all petitions. pleadings, and pa
pers essential 70 the preservation ant
enforcement of Their rights.
II is ordered that the offensive pet
itlCn be stricken from tie files. tina
respondent stand reprlmanded ant
warned and that he pay the costs a
this proceeding.
an attempt to shield it's receiver anr
his attorneys from an Investigation
OF charges of gross misconduct in OF
| hce and containing the statement tina
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. 5I9
In re Terry. SO Fed 4ls 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 anc
said that he had no intention to be
disrespectful or coatemptuous. 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 tn,
he admitted having used was not dis
oath to faithfully discharge the du
ties Of an attorney and councelcr
Surely sucn course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance w.
that duty. In Friedlander v Sumne
G. & S. NJ Co, 81 cal. III The cour
said:
If unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget h;msei
as willfully to employ Language mani
testify disrespectful to the Judge of tn
; superior court-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem ii our dut,
to treat such conduct as contempt o
ly: and the briefs of the case wer
ordered to be stricken from the fi;es
In L. s v Late Corporation o.
Church of Jesus Christ Of Later Ia
. Saints. language used in the petite,
warned, and hat he pay the costs o
,