Show LOWER COURT I USURPED SUPREME SAYS Peremptory Writ of Mandate Mandate Mandate Man Man- date Issued Directing Judge Burton to Reinstate Reinstate Rein Rein- state Higgins Foster A peremptory writ of mandate was ordered Issued by the supreme court l- l Friday requiring the be Fifth Firth district court and the sever several l courts counts in tn the district arid Thomas E. E Burton Bur Bur- ton as judge thereof to permit William B. B HiggIns to appear and practice before said courts and said Judge that he be Higgins be restored to all ail of his hla rights and privileges as an attorney and counselor counselor counselor coun coun- at law in accordance with the certificate issued to him by the su supreme supreme supreme su- su preme court A peremptory writ of ot mandate was also issued against the same district court count and the courts in the Fifth judicial district and Burton Durton to permit John M. M Foster Fosler to have tave havethe havethe the same rights and privileges as asan asan asan an attorney and counselor at law lawas lawas as were granted to Attorney Hig- Hig gins The opinion of oC the supreme court in the matter was walt written by Justice J. J B. B Prick HISTORY OF CASE Higgins and Foster were denied the tho right to practice their proCession profession sion slon by Judge Burton of oC the Fifth Firth Judicial district and the they as attorneys attorneys ne s 's and Higgins aa ns district at attorney attorney at- at torne torney applied to the supreme court for an alternative writ which was issued A demurrer and motion to quash the alternative writ wrt was filed upon the ground that mandamus was waa not the proper remedy re Both were overruled o and a peremptory writ Is Is- Is sued The alternative writ wa was wag Is Issued issued Is- Is sued upon the theory that In de denying denying de- de e- e nying the plaintiff plaintiff- HiggIns the right to practice in said courts Incases in incases incases cases pending therein in which lug lug- gins appeared as attorney the judge had acted without or In ex excess excess ex- ex cess of oC his jurisdiction There has been a a. difference of oC opinion between Judge Burton ana and Attorney Higgins for tor a consider consider- abel time and it culminated In itt the recent campaign in which some bitter bt bit ter tel language was used Cases are cited in the opinion of or Justice FrIck one from Alabama In particular In which the su supreme supreme supreme su- su preme court held that If ig 1 A t prohibits an h r n e authorizes him to practice beC before re reIt it and who has not been removed or suspended in the mode prescribed by the statute from appearing at its bat bar as counsel in causes In which he has been employed ed this is the tho deprivation of oC a a. clear legal right to the enjoyment of oC which he will be restored by mandamus manda manda- mus inns POWER ADMITTED Justice Irick says s 's that there Is 19 no doubt that although courts of oC i general Jurisdiction have hae the In Inherent Inherent In- In herent power to disbar and suspend sus sus- pend pent attorneys at law yet et it is I equally clear that the power may maybe maybe maybe be controlled and the right to disbar dis bar or suspend regulated by the tile legislative power He cites the statu statutes tes which he says are are- not as clear or as certain as they might be and then states that since 1888 In tho the provision that gave tho the district courts power ver to admit at attorneys attorneys at- at tornE s 's the words respective courts were omitted from the statute and that from that date all all admissions missions have ha been by the su supreme su- su premo preme court and that all proceedIngs proceedings proceed proceed- ings Ins in disbarment have been conducted conducted conducted con con- ducted by the supreme court o 0 LAW CRITICISED While the law Is In an unsatisfactory unsatisfactory factory state says Justice Frick Prick In that attorneys may be admitted by byone byone byone one court ony only namely the supreme court and when so admitted have haveth havethe havethe th the absolute right to appear and practice in all an the courts of at the state while the district court may remove them and thus d deprive them from the exercise of ot that right that can only he conferred in the n e-n court ourt of ot the state it leaves eft the Inferior court cout to destroy the right that Is conferred on the superior one It certainly add adds Justice PrIck Frick was wan not Intended that district courts hould have the power to destroy or affect the right to practice practice tice lice In the thi- supreme court Nor can any of the district courts destroy or affect the right to practice In Inan an any other district court If It toro foro th the district SIt courts Colitis still stihi possess the power to remove e attorneys attorney that power cannot be exercised so 80 as to affect the right to practice in any Rny other court except the one which enters enter the judgment of removal remo NO CHARGE PREFERRED In conclusion Justice Frick a says say In this c. c case the th plaintiff wan wall not charged with any act of ml misconduct misconduct miscon miscon- on- on duct or dl disrespect of or the court In Indeed Indeed Indeed In- In deed nothing was charged against him Notwithstanding LIt this thiu la however however however how how- ever the court refused to permit him a hearing In any 11 matter pendIng pend- pend ing lug before the court The Tb refusal reCusal waa was not only for tor an hour or for a aday day dl but continued Indefinite Courts Court posses posse no web such arbitrary power Attorneys Attorns at law law are ofil- ofil corn of the tho court and ud as such are responsible for their acts acta and conduct eon con Induct In- In duct to the court If It he h. Is la guilty of an act ot of conduct condet In the presence of the she court ourt that bat Is contemptuous the court h has hu power to summarily punish him and It m. m may refu refuse to hear heer him until he ha h. h has ha purged purd himself himself him him- self or complied with the lb order of the court res respecting Une the th contempt but a court may rosy not suspend an at attorney attorney at- at torney for lor causes cause although h causes causa may be bs ground for ta u or disbarment without some charf being filed tiled and nd notice to appear and defend bring being given Iren But the demurrer lid and the motion to quash must be overruled overrule It In I. a therefore themore eNd that a peremptory writ of mandate mandat Issue forthwith re requiring rf is gutTing quiring the aId district courts court and und the th Hon Thomas Thoma H ii Burton BI as judge JUde Ih thereof of to 10 pt permit the plaintiff plain tilt tiff to O a peer end nd pr prattle prattle- before the th as courts ourt and such lIuch and that lM b b. b restored to A sib all II of ot hl hi rig and privileges privilege a as n ln n n neT and nd counsellor nt lit I law Uw in a 11 with lIh the certificate linn linn-J to l him m b bv by this court court ourt |