Show ABUSED LOWER COURT Supreme Court Severely Lectures Offending Lawyers t INSULTED JUDGE HIGGINS I I OBJECTIONABLE MATTER I BRIEF STRICKEN OUT o A Sample of the Abusive Language Supreme Court Comments Upon I and Declares Practice Hust Stop Case Is However Remanded Remand-ed For Supplemental Decree I that vituperation and invective occasionally oc-casionally may creep into printed j pleadings before the bar of justice is not strange but the state supreme surt has declared that the use of disrespectful dis-respectful language toward a lower court shall not be tolerated In the ce at bar the objectionable matter lias been ordered stricken from the court flies and wit the order the attorneys at-torneys who offended the court were given a severe lecture The offense was noticed yesterday in an ojiinlon written by Justice Baskin and concurred in by Justices Bartch and Miner in the case of the Nephi Irrigation company plaintiff and respondent re-spondent vs Samuel T Vickers defendant de-fendant and appellant Tho Objectionable Language The matter objected to is in the printed brie of appellant whose attorneys at-torneys are King Burton Kin and Grant C Base All through the orlef are rCferencc to the trial court presided pre-sided over by Judge Higgins to which tiie supreme justices take pointed exception ex-ception but the most flagrant offend paragraph is said to be found in the following Then comes the testimony of Carter and Irons wo would have lucern land furrowcd thirteen or fourteen inches 1 deep that it might be economically irrigated ir-rigated Think of this wonderful proposition prop-osition Men who would propose such an bur and ridiculous thing are not entitled to the respect of the lowest individual in-dividual in the commonweaith lot alone to the confidence of a court cf justice From their testimony i is plain that the truth is not in them and they actuated act-uated simply by the desire to rob this poor man of n little water needed to matur his crop were willing to go before be-fore a court of justice > d swear away a mans property and ins rights r its use And yet this testimony appealed to the court and while j tended orb o-rb the defendant o his property i seemed that the court did not possess iOes sufficient knowledge of rhe methods of irrigation prevailing in this state to detect the willful misrepresentations of these designing witnesses and took their lying testimony as a basis for the most absurd decree ever rendered in I any court in this or any other State Their answers SIre guesses Ther aswers r pure guese I or worse than guesses and upon these cree guesses the court guessed at tho de Attorneys Lectured By the Court Commenting upon these references the courts pplnion supreme curts states Counsel for appellant have used language in their brief which reflects upon the trial court the impropriety of which is s flagrant that h cannot pass it by without notice Vituperations have no legitimate place in a legal argument The purpose pur-pose of briefs is to inform the court what the points are and by arguments on the facts and the law to enlighten the court upon the questions nvolv din d-in the litigation so that the court may be assisted thereby in the decision of the case Invectives are not arguments Their use in a brief does tot in the lu degree aid the court in arriving at just conclusions but only tends to Create discord The use qr the language referred to is not respectful to this court because it is not entitled to any weight as argument argu-ment and as counsel well know does not in the least degree aid the court and Is disrespectful and insulting to the court below Such practice cannot be tolerated and had our attention been called to it during the course of the oral argument we would not have permitted counsel to proceed and would then have ordered the brief to be stricken 6 strick-en from the files Brief Thrown Out It is ordered that the supplemental findings and decree be set aside with directions to the court below to permit the parties to introduce additional evi dence with a view of ascertaining more definitely the rights of the parties in the particulars mentioned in the previous previ-ous order remanding the case that the respondent pay the costs and that the brief containing the objectionable matter mat-ter referred to in the opinion be stricken strick-en from the files of this court Review of the Case This case was originally tried in 1896 and later on appeal to the supreme court it was remanded to Judge Hig gins to determine by evidence the exact number of second feet or fractional parts of the stream from Hop creek and from Rock springs to which de fendant was entitled in irrigating seasons sea-sons for his thirtyone acres of land and for domestic purposes In accordance accord-ance with the mandate the Ipwer l court I rendered a supplemental decree but the defendant appealed again alleging that the courts findings were not ar I ranted by the evidence The supreme court yesterday held from a review of the case that Vickers is entitled to water for a longer period than is specified spec-ified In the supplemental decree Warner Houts are attorneys for I the plaintiff and respondent the Nephi Irrigation company I |