El Nuevo mexicano., 1917-08-02
SUPREME COURT HAS
NO, RIGHT TO STOP
s INFERIOR COURT
! PRACTICE, HOLDS
MARION AND WOOD SUSPENSION
APPLIED ONLY TO SUPREME
AND DISTRICT COURTS, DIS
sENTlNG OPINION OF JUDGE
ROBERTS
SWORN DENIAL OF INTENT TO
BE coNTEMPTuOUS TO COURT
Is CONCLUSIVE, SAYS AUTHOR
ITY QUOTED BY COURT

That the supreme court has as much
right to reach out and strip an Ordi-
nary citizen of the right to buy and
sell property, engage in business, vote
or hold Office as 1t has to strip Marion
& Wood, Albuquerque attorneys, Of the
right to practice in the probate and
other inferior courts, draw contracts
and examine titles, is held, in effect,
by Justice G. j.. Roberts in his dis
senting opinion in the Marion & Wood
contempt case, handed down with the
majority opinion yesterday afternoon.
Justice Roberts contends that the
supreme court order ~suspending Mar
ron & Wood from practice in the
courts of the state, which was issued
in September, 1916, and for alleged
violation of which the contempt pro
ceeding was brought, suspended them
only from practice in the supreme
and district courts. In his opinion he
says:
1.-The disbarment or suspension Of an
attorney from his right to practice law
is not for the purpose OF Furnishing
the suspended or disbarred member,
but for the protection of the public.
L Ic COuIL 6Iduto " IL CltlLCh thC iA6ht
to practice law in the supreme and
district courts. 1t grants him nothing
more. He has, without any action on
the part of the supreme court, the right
to appear before the probate court
and justice Of the peace; to draw con-
tracts, examine abstracts of title and
do various other acts charged to have
been done by the respondents herein.
Can the court, where proceedings are
instituted to disbar or suspend attor-
neys, take from such attorneys rights
which it has not granted to them, and
which were enjoyed before admission
to the bar? l claim it cannot. If it
a reach out, in proceedings for dis
barment from practice, and strip a
man of the right to do those things
which he could lawfully do without adj
mission in the first instance, 1t could
with equal propriety strip him of any
and all rights enjoyed by the ordinary
citizen, such, for example, as the
right to buy and sell property; to en-
gage in business enterprises; to vote,
or to hold Office"
While Justice Roberts holds that
Marion & Wood should not have held
themselves gu as attorney" by dis
playing signs at their Offices, using
stationery, etc, he cites the fact that
they disclaimed any intention of vio-
lating the order of the court or show
ing disrespect, and declares his I'M
willingness to assent to a fine for such
action. In this connection he quotes
an interesting note from the ase Of
O'Flinn v. the State of Mississippi, 8
L. r. A., dealing with the effect Of de-
NAL under oath to purge one Of crimi-
nal contempt, as follows:
"The weight Of authority may be
said to hold that, in cases of COZ
structive or indirect criminal con-
tempt, If the contempt consists of acts
or statements which are ambiguous in
character, and which are capable Of
two constructions, one of which would
amount to contempt and the other not,
so that the intent of the party himself
becomes the material question Of in
quiry, then a denial on oath by such
party of an intent to show ~disrespect
to the court is conclusive, and cannot
be disputed"