Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-05-01


In re Wooley IL hy. 80, It was held
L at to incorporate into p.-.tion for
rehearing the statement that Your
-onors nave rendered an unjust de-
cree" and othe insulting matter, is
to commit in open court an act con-
stitutiLg a contempt on the part of the
attorney; and hat where the Ian
guaCe 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 ne
NAV BY a systematic and continuous
course of conduct, render it impossl-
BILE for the courts to preserve their
| self-Iespect 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 cOntumaciously
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. 80 VT 262, the re-
spondent was fined for ironically stat
, ing to justice of the peace, Il think
this magistrate wiser than the SUI
preme court" Redteld, C. j., said:
THE counsel must submit IN JUS
tice court as well as in this court,
! and with the same formal respect.
howeI er difficult. it may lie either
here or there"
I'VE do not see that the relatOr has
any alternative left him but the sub
mission to what Ae no doubt regards
as a apprehension of the law, both
on the part of the justice and of this
court. And in that respect he is in a
condition very similar to many who
have failed 10 convince others of the
sopHdness of their own views, or to
became convinced themselves ftheir
falacy"
In Mahonev V. State. Is N. z. ISL,
an attorney was fined $50 for saying
81 want to see whether the court is
right or rot want y know whether
! am going to be heard in tnis case in
! the interests of my Glen. or No
iDr -
In Redman V State IS Ind the judge
Informed counsel that a question Wa
improper and the attorney replied
IF we cannot examine our witnesses
he can stand aside" This language
was deemed offensive ana the courr
prohibited that particular attorney
from examining the next witness.
+ In Brown V Brown " Ind 727. tht
lawyer was taxed with the cost Of thu
action for filing and reading petition
f for divorce which was unnecessarily
gross and indicate.
q In Mccormick V. Sheridan. % P. u
= IS. Cal, "A petition for rehearine
= stated that how or why the honorable
+ commission should have so efectuall7
: and substantially ignored and disre
> oarded the uncontradicted testimony
, we do not know. Il seems that nei
: Their the transcript nor our briefs
: could have fallen under the commits
1 sioners observation. A more disin
f geniCus and misleading statement o
/ the evidence cold not well be made
! It IS substantially untrue and unwar
: ranted. The decision seems to us Il
t be traversitv Of the evidence" Hell
: that counsel drafting the petition wa
{ guilty Of contempt committeu in thu
4 face of the court, notwithstanding
l. disavOwal of disrespectful intention
. A fine Of 5000 was imposed with an a
tentative of serving in jail
& The Chief Justice speaking for tn
: court in State V Morrill,. Is Ark. 81
said:
Ii IF ii was the general habit of th
/ | community to denounce. degrade an
r disregard the decisions and judgment
= of the courts. no man of self-resDeC
X and Just pride Of renu'a in w1url IT
t main upon the bench, and such onl
e would become the ministers of III
: law as were insensible to def2mati0
+ and contempt. But happily for tn
e good order Ct society. men. an espe'
{ iallv the people of this country. or
o generally disnOead to, respect an
d abide the decisions of the tribunal
S ordained by government as the con
mon arhiters of their rights. BIZ
2 where isolated individuals, In viOlf
S ton of the better instincts Of huma
q nature. and nisregardful of law an
{, | order. wontanly attempt to obstruc
IT tle course Of public justice by disrc
e garding and exciting disrespect fc
J. the decisions OF its triHInn 5. ever
e good citizen will point them out q
n proper subjects for legal an1madve
sion.
y 4 court must naturally look first
e an enlightened and conservative ba
Il governed by a high sense Of DrOfe
|: sional ethics and deeply sensible. 6
i they always are. of its necessity
If aid IL the maintenance of public re
r pect for its opinions"
D. In SOners V. Torrey, Paige Oh.
! % Am D. AL, it was held that the a
u torneyw no put his hand to scandalol