The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-09

these tribunals sf '.s... e or the sup
port and prese. Sarioc of their respec-
liability and independence; it has ex-
listed from the edf..- :. .'ioi t: whit h
the annals of iuti, .Drudsace eftend:
end, except In a few cases Of marty vlo-
BE, it has been sanctioned and es-
tn shed by the experience of ages.'|
LORD Mayor of LondOn's case, Will
son, III; opinion o. Kent, G. j.. in
the case of Yates, Johns, BIT: John
son v. The Commonwealth l Bibb 59S.
At page sO6 of Weeks on Attorneys.
I'd edition it is said:
Language may be COMBINATIONS.
| w..e,her written or spoken; and if in
J the presence of the court, notice is
not essential before punishment and
| scandalous and insulting matter in
petition for rehearing is equivalent
to the commission in open court of an
act constituting contempt When
the language is capable of expIana-
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
a 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 Gary, 10 Fed. s3z, and in
9 eye. /. 20, where 1t Is said that
contempt may be committed by in
seCting in pleadings, briefs. motions
! arguments. petitions for rehearing or
other papers filed in court insulting
or contemptuCus language. rejecting
on the integrity Of the court.
| Hy 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 disras-
pect to the court may palIiate but
cannot Justify a charge which under
any explanation cannCt be construed
otherwise than as rejecting on the in
teligence and motives of the court.
and which could scarcely have heen
made for any other purpose unless to
intimidate Or Improperly influence our
decision.
AS we have seen. attorneys have
been severely punished for using lam
guage in many instances not so rep
rehensi5le. but N view of the disa-
vowal in omen 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 forsat that on prescribi.. 9
asar,st the miscon ilcc of ait;rneve
litIgants ought not to be punished cr
prevented from maintaining in the
case all petitions, pleadings. and pa
pers essential 70 the preservation and
enforcement of their rights.
1t is ordered that the offensive pet
itlon be stricken from the files. that
respondent stand reprimanded anG
warned, and that he pay the costs o1
this proceeding
an attempt to shield its receiver anc
his attorneys from an investigation
Of charges of gross misconduct in OF
flee and containing the statement thai
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. 5l9.
In re Terry. Sc 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 anc
said that he had no intention to be
disrespectful 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 tn,
he admitted having used was not dis
) oath to faithfully discharge the du
ties Of an attorney and councelcr ;
1 Surely sucn course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance Wa
: 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 hmsei
; as willfully to employ language mani
| festly disrespectful to the Judge of tn
s superior cOurt-a thing not to be an
{ ticipated-we shall deem it our dut,
: TO treat such conduct as contempt O
Y this court. and to proceed according
2 ly: and the briefs of the case wer
? In L. s. v Late Corporation al
: Church of Jesus Christ Of Later Ia
@ Saints. language used in the petitio
/ warned. and that he pay the costs O
20