The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-07

these tribunals If .,s...,c or the sup
port and prese.t atio1 of their resrec.
liability and independence: it has ex-
listed from the eaf,.- :. r.'io1 tc whit Il
the annals of iufi, .rndsace eGtand
md, except in Jew cases If marty ylo
~e, it has been sanctioned and es-
~ he'd by the experience of sges."|
| LN&Aayor of London's case. VII
Sol, NJ; opinion o. Kent G. J.. in
the case of Yates, Johns, 81; John
son v. The Commonwealth ] Bibb 59s.
At page 206 of Weeks on Attorneys.
I'd edition it IS said:
Language may be. cOntemptuous.
w..ether written or spoken; and if in
J 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
a contempt may tend to excuse, but
cannot justify the act From an open
notorious and public insult TO court
for which an attorney contumaciously
refused in any way to atone, ne 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. g., and in
9 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 conten1ptncus 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 paliate but
cannot Justify a charge which under
any explanation cannot he construed
otherwise than as rejecting on the in
r diligence and motives Of the court,
and which could scarcely have been
made for any other purpose unless to
. iutimidate Or improperly influence our
decision
IS We ildN Z seen, dtIpFneNS have
5 been severely punished for using Ian.
| guage in many instances not so rep
, rehensiole. but IN view of the disa.
: yowal 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 forge that or prescribi;.
asa.,st The nilsson i,Ic- u attorney:
litigants ought no. to BE 'prnishcu G,
r prevented. from 1.air+airing in tiit
case all petitions. pleadings. and pa
pers essential 70 the preservation ant
= enforcement Of Their rights
1t is ordered that the offensive pet
itlon be stricken from the files. tina
respondent stand reorimanded anc
warned, and that he pay the costs o;
this proceeding
an attempt 70 shield its receiver an
his attorneys from an investigation
OF charges OF gross misconduct in OF
{ nee and containing the statement tina
We must decline to assume the
functions OF grand jury. or attemp
TO perform the duty of the court il
investigating the conduct Of its Off
: GERS. was held to be contemptuous
al1 P. 5ly
In re Terry. So Fed 419 an extrem,
7 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 an.
: said that he had no intention to b,
! disrespectful or conrempruous. but h
I also earnestly contended that the Ian
:. gusge charged against him and whicI
: ing was based, was. in my opinion
, cortemptuous and moved that if tn
d he admitted having used was not dis
5 oath to faithfully discharge the du
ties Of an attorney and c0uncelcr
a Surely SUCH a course as was taken i
|. this case is not in compliance W..
l. that duty. In Friedlander V Sumne
G. & S. NJ Co, 81 al. III. The cour
g said
o IF unfortunately counsel in an,
case shall ever So far forget h;nsei
@ as willfully to employ language man
d festly disrespectfui to the Judge of tn
IS superior court-a thing not to be ar
u ticipated-We shall deem II our duJ
p to treat such conduct as a contempt c
Y this court and to proceed according
g ly: and the briefs of the case wer
n ordered to be stricken from the flies
e In Z. ). V Late Corporation 0
c. Church of Jesus Chtis- If Later Ia
% Sairts language used in the petitio
d warned. and hat he pay the costs c