Court Opinion

ID: 9528251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:38:46.159335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:37.487369
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, P. J., Concurring.
I concur. In doing so it seems proper to mention that the subject-matter of this case involves some very important principles in the administration of justice. First, the right of the incorporated bar to combat the unethical practices of its own members and, secondly, the right of the court to protect its own reputation and preserve its powers. Of corresponding and even greater importance is the right of the individual to be free from legal proceedings founded only on hearsay upon wdiich summary action may be had. In the instant proceeding full and earnest objection was made by the accused (petitioner herein) in answering the court’s order to show cause. But the court overruled the objection and proceeded summarily to try the issue. No opportunity was accorded petitioner to test the court’s jurisdiction by any proper writ from an appellate court and no appeal lay from the trial court’s determination.
In these circumstances, I think the historic requirement that the substance of an alleged contempt must be positively averred should not be broken down by judicial decision. On the other hand, the facts show a scandalous manipulation of funds awarded by the court for the benefit of minors. Whether or not petitioner was involved in such manipulation, I do not intimate. It would seem, however, that the facts would admit of positive allegations should The State Bar be advised to take further action.
Crail, J., concurred.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 17, 1935, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.