Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-03-31


officers Charged W. the duty Of ad-
ministerlng them" 12S U. S. 3l3.
| In re WoOley IL NY. 50, 1t was held
| tat to incorporate into a pc~.tion for
rehearing the statement that "Your
| Donors have rendered an unjust de
cree" and othec insulting matter, is
! to commit in open court an act con
| shutting a contempt on the part of the
| attorney; and hat where the Ian
guage spoken or written is Of i-selt
necessarily offensive, the disayOwal O.
an intention to commit contempt
may tend to excuse but cannot justify
| the act. From paragraph III 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 systematic and continuous
| course of conduct, render it lmpoSSi-
| BILE for the courts to preserve their
| self-respect 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
nor orious and pubic insult to the
! highest judicial tribunal Of the State
| for which an attorney Contumacionsiy
! 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. 262. 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" Redfeld c. J., said:
The counsel must submit in a jus
, tice court IS well as in this court,
and with the same formal respect,
howe1 er difficult. it may lie either
/ here or there"
We do not see that the relatcr has
any alternative left him but the sub
mission to What e no doubt regards
as q apprehension Of the law, both
on the part Of the Justice and of this
court. Ana in that respect he is in q
condition ve~y similar to many who
have failed 10 convince others OF The
! .,s.,,...,-- t,l-
e. e. !, >''l INV 80 'A->
T' ,r.,,-,..--- c,.-, 30 -,
Il. -. e,, 80, g., ,-....--
Q"
van. ~
--=il 81 80. an,
am 3. '"- 80 49, "''i" =" li~
'nt /" 9i NV ~,'Ih
a'' l'' -..''- ''"S' ''l SO O.
VI. I'5.'l'-''4 i''.-'
l-'''- me- '''''' " ..,.- =
l,.bi"I'' '"" '"' .'ii-@E ,i"-'1'
II ''--l. 1: ..'- :. -,,.: ,..,,..,,a.u~
ne can 9.aua d7.'e. '''@'-
was ar'oel oh|H7Ne ana ilt '0"'
i''''''- '.i nc -''. ga, ,'',. W.
p rom ezaA'hla@ INC reI' Tl'i"-S .,
~ E>E"N" h,'" Il M 49,. NV
Ia" >'' Nfl .a>7.' " ''" 'i.S ". 81,
~ ''u i'' ma" al" 60 q
f Tor Hi\''re Nh-th vas UNI a. II ;
gross ana lhdeH'ate.
FL In McCorhiicF y. 9heT.iahs =" 7. -
-, Cal. "A petuon for feAearln9
= stated jhar no" or NAN me non"rah.e
f COMMISSION Sh"uIu nave 50 t'@e' 'a'H
+ and substantially ignored an o.Nre
. garded III" 77H9n'radtc-ed testimony
We do not Know: It seems Jnat re.
ther me transcript nor our hslel@
: could nave taIen under the commls
I sloheFS ChserEa' ION. y more "lslh
+ geniouS and misleading statement al
the evidence could not well he made
It Is substantially untrue and unWar
ranted. The decision seems to us &c
t be troverslrE OF the evidence t+H"
. that counsel drafting the petition was
I guilty of contempt committed IN th5
face Of The court. notwithstanding
dlSaYoWai OF oi9feSDEcuoi IN eHtl'll
\ fine Of 5000 was imposed with an al
/ tentative Of serving IN lali
q The Chief Justice sDeaNn" Tor ms
e. conrt in State '. Morrill,. l6 ARK. ~
said:
1 If it was the genera! haolj Oh nv