The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1913-01-21
ATTORNEY RAPED
BY SUPREME
COURT
"cALLED DOWN" FOR SAYING IN
BRIEF FILED THAT CHAM
cELLoR WAS BASED.
Special to The NeioS.


Jackson, Miss, Jan. 21.-The Missis-
sippi Supreme Court took a dignified
rap at an attorney representing a eli.
ent in a case that was decided by that
tribunal yesterday. The court called
down" an attorney for presuming, in
a brief, to say in substance that the
chancellor was biased in matter OF
litigation.
1t was in the case of Mrs. NJ. j. Nc
Alllster vs. S. NJ. Richardson ct al,
that the 'whack" was made. Judge
Richard Il. Reed rendered the opinion
and took exceptions to references
made to Chancellor b. T. Blount of
the Third judicial district from which
court the appeal was taken on his de.
cision.
Mrs. A. Il. Ford of Tippah county
made deed to a certain property to
Mr.. and Mrs. Richardson. There was
an error in the description of the land
when the justice of the peace who
wrote the deed copied the description
from a tax receipt. This error was
discovered after the death of Mrs.
Ford, and suit was brought asking the
court to correct the description. Chan.
cellor Blount decreed that the proper
correction be made.
At point in the trial the chancel-
Tor remanded the case to the rules to
take further testimony, and continued
the hearing of the case until the next
term of court. This action of the chan
cellor was assigned as an error in the
case by one of the counsellors for Mrs.
McAllister In his opinion Judge Reed
quotes his references to the chancel.
lor, as follows
zone of the counsel for appellant
in claiming that this action of the
chancellor was an abuse of his discre-
ton states in his brief that the latter
is called to the attention of this court
for a twofold purpose: % to secure
an announcement that will prevent
trial courts in the future from volun-
teering, in litigated cases, to assist one
or the other of interested parties: (2)
to show an insensible bias toward the
plaintiffs which later probably domi-
mated the judgment of the court in his
findings
I'VE strongly disapprove of the
above statement by counsel. We do
not find that the record of this case in
anywise justifies counsel in his claim
that the chancellor showed a bias to-
ward appellees in the proceedings of
the case. 1t was the duty Of the chan
cellor to see that the case was fairly
tried, and that all proper testimony
was introduced to enable him to rem
der a decision giving exact justice be.
tween the contending parties. The
very purpose of a court of equity Is
to extend fairness in determining con-
flicting claims, and to give full and
complete relief in every cause present
ed. The chancellor is in no manner
going beyond the duties imposed up
on him when he so conducts a case
that all testimony which will throw
light upon the matters in controversy
is introduced, and in his discretion he
may continue the case, or remand the
case for further proof"
The supreme court affirmed the de-
cision of the chancellor, saying, TT
is certainly well settled in this state
that court of equity has power to
reform deed so It will conform to
the real intention of the parties"
It is said that in certain courts in
some attorneys have not
been as dignified as they should in
judges, or in presenting
rO11 unapfc