The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-15

these tribunals ct i,.s...,s or the sup
port and Urese. alton of their respec.
facility and independence; it has ex-
listed from the ear..- :. s'iIi t. Wbit h
the annals OF tufi, prudence eGtend;
and, except In 4 lew cases If marty vlO-
NNce, it has been sanctioned and es-
to&shed by the exp ecience of ages.'
Lord Mayor of London's case, 3 Will
so.., 1BS; opinion o. Kent, e j.. in
the case of Yates, 4 Johns, BIZ; John
son ". The Commonwealth l Bibb 59S.
At page 206 Of Weeks on Attorneys.
I'd edition it IS said:
Language may be contemptuous.
w..eLher written or spoken; and il 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
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. 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 O,
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 a 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 tc
intimidate Or Improperly influence oul
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 concIud
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,,
asai-,st the miscorilc- of attorney
litigants ought not to be punished {.
prevented from 1.aintaining in tn
case all petitions, pleadings, and pa
pers essential TO the preservation an
enforcement of Their rights
1t is ordered that the offensive ne,
iilon be stricken from the files. tina
respondent stand reDrlmanded an
warned, and that he pay the costs O
this proceeding.
an attempt to shield its receiver an
his attorneys from an investigatio,
OF charges of gross misconduct in o,
flee and containing the statement tina
I'VE must decline to assume tn,
functions of grand jury. or attemp
to perform the duty of the court II
investigating the conduct of it's off
GERS, was held to be contemptuous
211 P. 5I9
In re Terry. So Fed 41s an extrem
case. for charging the court with ha,
: Court deemed the language contemp
uous, the said language be stricke
out of his petition
Respondent not only contended an
said that he had no intention to b
disrespectful or contemptuous, but h
I also earnestly contended that the lal
!. guage charged against him and whic
: ing was based, was, in my opinion
, contemptuous: and moved that IL tn
d he admitted having used was not di!
) oath to. faithfully discharge the d,
ties Of an attorney AMI councelcr
a Surely sucn course as was taken
|. this case is not in compliance Wa
l. that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
G.. & S. NJ. Co., 81 cal. III. The coul
e said
0 IF unfortunately counsel in an
case shall ever so far forget hi,nse
e as willfully to employ Language man
d testify disrespectful to the judge of til
S superior court-a thing not to be al
I ticipated-we shall deem it our du,
= to treat such conduct as a contempt
Y this court. and to proceed accordin
e ly; and the briefs of the case we,
n ordered to be STRICKEN from the flies
e In L. 5. V. Late Corporation {
2 Church of Jesus Christ Of Later IL
e Sairts. language used in the petite
d warned, and that he pay the costs