The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-14

these tribunals If .,s:. = or the sup
port and Drese.N ats, of their respec-
liability and independence; it has ex-
listed from the eat,.- :. ..iol to who h
the annals OF tufi ,,rudsace eGtenu;
end, except In Few cases If party y1o-
N1ce, it has been sanctioned and es-
t1enhed by the experience Of ..es. II
Lord Mayor of Londons case. Will
son, fSS; opinion o. Kent, e. J.. in
the case of Yates, Johns, BIZ; John
son v. The Commonwealth l Bibb 59s
At page FOG of Weeks on Attorneys.
I'd edition it IS said:
Language may be contemptuous.
wAelher 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 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
disavowal of an intention to commit
contempt may tend to excuse, but
cannot justify the act. From an open.
notorious and public insult to a court
for which an attorney contumaciously
refused in any way to atone, he was
fined 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. CO.. and in
9 Cyc. L. 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 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 disres-
pect to the court may palliate but
cannot Justify 2 charge which under
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
intimidate Or Improperly influence our
decision.
As we have SEEN attorneys have
been severely punished for using Ian
guage in many instances not so rep
rehensiole. but IN view of the disa-
vowal in open court We have conclud-
ed not to impose a penalty so harsh
as disbarment or suspension from
practice, or fine or Imprisonment.
/ Nor do we forge. that on prescribii.e
+ asaIrst the miscorllcc Of attorneys
litigants ought roe to be punished cl
I prevented from r.ain+arning in the
/ case all petitions. pleadings, and pa
pers essential TO the preservation and
/ enforcement Of their rights.
! It is ordered that the offensive pet
lilon be stricken from the files. that
! respondent stand reprimanded and
warned, and that he pay the costs Of
/ this proceeding.
/ an attempt to shield its receiver anc
his attorneys from an investigation
! of charges of gross misconduct in OF
| fee and containing the statement tha
We must decline to assume the
functions of grand jury. or attemp,
! to perform the duty of the court in
! investigating the conduct of its off
GERS was held to be contemptuous
| 2l1 P. $40.
| In re Terry, So Fed. 41s an extrem,
| 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 ant
said that he had no intention to be
disrespectful or conremptuous. but h
also earnestly contended that the Ian
guage charged against him and which
ing was based, was, in my opinion
cOntemptuous: and moved that If 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..
i. that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
G. & S. NJ. Co., 81 .al. III. The cour
. said.
IF unfortunately counsel in an,
oase shall ever so far forget h:msei
!, as willfully to employ language man
festly disrespectful to the judge of tn
5 superior court-a thing not to be ar
ticipated-we shall deem it our dut
TO treat such conduct as a contempt c
, this court. and to proceed accOrdin:
) ly: and the briefs Of the case wer
! ordeled to be stricken from the flies.
In {. s. V Late Corporation 0
: Church of Jesus Chtis- IF Later Ia
, Sairts. language used in The petitio
warned. and hat he pay the costs {