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

the laws enacted for the vindication
OF public and private rights, nor the
officers CID ged W, the duty OF ad- ,
ministerlng them" 12S U. s. 3l3.
In re Wooley IL NY. IS. 1t was held
tat to incorporate into a ,~.tion for
rehearing the statement that Your
AonOrs have rendered an unjust de-
cree" and othe. insulting matter, is
to commit i'll open court an act con-
stitutiLg contempt on the part of the
attorney; and hat where the Ian
Guage spoken or written is of itself
necessarily offensive, the disavowal OF
an intention to commit contempt
may tend to excuse but cannot justify
the act. From a paragraph in that
opinion we quote:
AN attorney may unfit himself for
the practice Of his profession by the
manner in which he conducts himself
in his intercourse with the courts. He
may be honest and capable. and yet
he may so conduct himself as to contin-
ually interrupt the business of the
courts in which he practices; or he
may by a systematic and continuous
course of conduct, render it impossi-
BILE for the courts to preserve their
selfTespect and the respect Of the
public and at the same time permit
him to act as an officer and attorney.
| An attorney who thus studiously and
! Systematically attempts to bring the
tribunals Of justice into public con-
tempt is an unfit person to hold the
position and exercise the privileges of
| an officer Of those tribunals. An open
notorious and pubic Insult to the
highest judicial tribunal Of the State
for which an attorney contumaciousiy
refuses in any way to atone, may JUS
tify the refusal of that tribunal TO
recognize him in the future as one Of
its officers"
In re Cooper, % Vt 1863, the re
spondent was fined for ironically stat
ing to a justice of the peace, 4 think
this magistrate wiser than the SUI
preme court" Redtield. G. j.. said:
The counsel must submit IN a JUS
tice court as we'll as in this court,
and with the same formal respect.
howeI er difficult. it may he either
here or there"
we do not see that the relator has
any alternative left him but the sub
mission to what he no doubt regards
as a misapprehension of the law, both
on the part of the justice and of this
court And in that respect he is in
condition very similar 10 many who
have failed to convince others of the
soundness of their own views, or to
became convinced themselves o fthe;r
falacy"
In Nahoney v State, t. n E Isl,
! an attorney was fined $50 for saying
, 81 want to see whathe- the court is
right or rot want t, krow whether
H.
the interests of mv Glen. or n,,.'
t and making other insolent statements
In Redman v State IS Ind. the Judge
Informed counsel that question was
improper and the attorney replied:
IF we cannot examine our witnesses
he can stand aside" This language
was deemed offensive ana the court
prohibited that particular attorney
from examining the next witness
In Brown V. Brown " Ind 727. the
lawyer was taxed with the cost Of the
action for fling and reading petition
for divorce which was unnecessarily
gross and indicate
In Mccormick v. Sheridan, 20 P "a
70. Cal. "a petition for rehearing
stated that how or why the honorable
commission should have so effectualiy
; garded the uncontradicted testimony.
. We do not know 1t seems That nei-
Their the transcript nor our briefs
could have fallen under the commits
sioners observation. A more disin-
genious and misleading statement Of
| the evidence could not well be made.
II is substantially untrue and unwar-
ranted The decision seems to us to
be traversity of the evidence" Held
that counsel drafting the petition was
guilty of contempt committed in the
face of the court. twithstanding a
disavowal of dsrespectful intention.
: A fine of 5000 was imposed with an al.
tentative Of serving in Jail
The Chief Justice speaking for the
/ court in State V. Morrill, Is Ark. 80
said:
IF it was the general habit of the
r community to denounce, degrade. and
( disregard the decisions and judgments
( of the courts. no man of self-respect
: and just pride of renu:a ! IN waud re
main upon the bench. and such only
! would become me ministers of the
, law as were insensible TO defamation
: and contempt But happily for the
D good order of society. men. an espec
4 iallv the people of this country. arc
5 generally DISPOSED to respect and
abide the decisions of the tribunals
: ordained by government as the com
S mon arbiters Of their rights. But
a | where isolated individuals. In viola
ton of the better instincts of human
t nature and uisreeardful of law anc
? order. wontanlv attempt to obstruc'
i iAe course of public justice by disre
g earding and exciting disrespect fol
n the decisions o. its trio'.na S. ever!
good citizen will point them out as
proper subjects for legal anlmadver
!. sion
L court must naturally look first tt
/: an enlightened and conservative bar
governed by high sense OF profes
f sional ethics and deeply sensible, a:
T they ALWAYS are of its necessity L