Dolley v. Ragon

[224]

THE COURT.

This matter came on for hearing July 21, 1924. At the conclusion of the hearing, wherein an attorney for respondents was accused of acts constituting contempt of court, the decision of the court was announced orally by the presiding justice, as follows:

Mr. George P. Adams was herein charged with misconduct, in wrongfully misrepresenting the facts in the record, such alleged misrepresentations being contained in his brief for respondents. The court examined the petition very promptly after its filing, and made a statement which was made a matter of record, that the whole matter was beyond the jurisdiction of this court, except in so far as there were any charges of misconduct amounting to contempt of this court. There were positive statements made in the petition that the respondents’ brief filed by Mr. Adams contained false statements concerning the record, known by Mr. Adams to have been false. Of course, where a statement is made under oath by one purporting to inform the court of acts of that kind, the court is not justified in ignoring them, even though (as in this case happens to be true), the attorney against whom the charges have been made is one in whom the judges of the court, through many years of professional experience, have had complete confidence. For no one is above the law. The informant—who is not a party to the action—suggested to the court that he was not an attorney at law, and that he was willing to furnish the court with the names of five reputable attorneys practicing at the bar of this state, of whom the court might select any two to appear as friends of the court and present the matters complained of. The court, in passing preliminarily upon the application, declined to adopt that exact procedure, but stated that it stood ready to hear an explanation or prosecution of the charges by any reputable attorney who would appear for that purpose. The court has waited for some time; no one has appeared. The informant, Mr. Henry G. Dent, has "been informed of this hearing, brought up at the instance of Mr. Adams; has been so informed by notice given in the only way that he has left open to give notice, for in his communications to the court he not only gives no residence or office address, but does specifically give his address as at a certain postoffice box

[225]