The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-11
tho4a trihunala # 1,s. :, or tho eun.

9.if
these tribunals f a.s.. e or the SUP.
port and prese. atio3 Of their respec-
liability and independence; it has ex-
listed from the eart.- :. s.ioi tc whith
the annals OF juri ,,rudsace eGtend:
and, except In q lew cases Of party vlo-
l%~ce, it has been sanctioned and es-
t1o6hed by the experience of sges.")
Lord Mayor of London's case, Will
sOn, YSS; opinion o. Kent, G. J.. in
the case of Yates, 4 Johns, 317; John
son v. 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 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
4 SCAhot Juotliy tIiC dIl IOlIl oil 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
10 Cyc. I. 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 contemDtuous language. rejecting
on the integrity of the court.
| BY using the Objectionable language
stated respondent became guilty of
contempt which no construction OF
the words can excuse or purge His
disclaimer of an Intentional disrps-
pect TO the court may palliate but
cannot justify a charge when under
any explanation cannot be construct
otherwise than as rejecting on the in
teiigence and motives of the court
and which could scarcely have been
made for any other purpose unless to
intlmldate Or improperly influence our
decision
AS we have seen, attorneys have
been severely punished for using Ian
guage in many instances not so rep
rehensi5le, 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 forget that on prrscribi., 9
aaar,st the miscor ilc- Of att,rnevs
litgants ought ro1 to be punished cr
prevented from H:airtaning in the
case all petitions, pleadings, and pa
pers essential 10 the preservation and
enforcement of her rights
It is ordered that the offensive pet
itlcn be stricken from tie files, that
respondent stand reprlmanded 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
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 SIG.
In re Terry. So 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 ant
said that he had no intention TO he
disrespectful or contemptuous but ht
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,
1 he admitted having used was not dis
5 oath to faithfully discharge the du
ties Of an attorney AMI councelCr
a Surely sucn course as was taken il
. this case is not in compliance w.
/ that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
G. & S. NJ Co., 81 cal. III. The cour
e said:
. IF unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget h;msei
2 as willfully TO employ Language mani
1 testify disrespectful to the Judge of tn
S superior court-a thing not TO be an
I ticipated-we shall deem ii our dut
J., to treat such conduct as a contempt q
= this court. and to proceed according
g ly: and the briefs of the case war
n order ed to be stricken from the flies.
e IN I. 5. V. Late Corporation O
;, Church of Jesus Chtis- Of Later Ia
e Sairts language used in the petitio
d warned, and hat he pay the costs O
, -O-O--