People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Wicks, 14066.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | 14066. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. ATTY. GEN. v. WICKS. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Original proceedings by the People of the state of Colorado, on the relation of the Attorney General, against P. G. Wicks respondent, on rule to show cause why respondent should not be punished for contempt of court.
Rule discharged.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Walter F. Scherer, Asst. Atty Gen., for petitioner.
P. G Wicks, pro se.
The information and petition filed in this court by the Attorney General against P. G. Wicks charges 'that contrary to the law of the state of Colorado he advertises and represents himself to the public as having the authority to practice law and as having the authority to perform the functions of an attorney at law and act in a legal capacity,' in that he caused to be inserted twice in the Monitor, a weekly newspaper published in the City and County of Denver and state of Colorado, under the caption 'Business and Professional Directory,' and under the subcaption of 'Notary,' an advertisement in words and figures as follows: and, further, in that he caused to be painted a sign which he displayed and maintained in the window of his office at 2945 Zuni street in view of the general public, which, among other things, contained the words 'Legal papers made,' and under said caption enumerated the following: 'Deeds, trust deeds, mortgages, chattel mortgages, releases, extensions, affidavits, contracts and wills.'
Petitioner prays that Wicks be required to show cause 'why he should not be punished for contempt for engaging in the practice of law in the state of Colorado, and for advertising and holding himself out as having the authority to perform the functions and duties of an attorney at law and act in a legal capacity.'
Upon order to show cause why he should not be punished as prayed, respondent answered, admitted the publication and the painting and displaying of the sign as charged, but denying that he ever practiced law within the state of Colorado or held himself out to be a lawyer, or ever allowed any one to believe he was a licensed attorney, or ever advertised that he was a lawyer, or had the intention of causing any one to believe that he was licensed as an attorney at law. He alleges that he discontinued the publication, and withdrew the sign from his office window Before this action was commenced, as he had been advised by a friend 'that it might be construed as an effort to infringe upon the rights of the legal profession.' Respondent further alleges that he 'believed that the typing of certain legal papers was a part of his official duties, that he was expected to do same, and that the authority to do same was conveyed to him by his commission' as a notary. He denies any intent to violate the law or rules of the court and states that he will submit to any ruling which the court may make.
Section 6022, C.L.1921, '35 C.S.A., c. 113, § 2, confers upon notaries public certain powers enumerated therein. Specifically it states that they may make 'declarations and protests.' Section 7960, C.L.1921, '35 C.S.A., c. 115, § 3, provides that they may 'take affidavits and depositions concerning any matter or thing, process or proceeding pending or to be commenced in any court or Before any justice of the peace, or on any occasion wherein such affidavit or deposition is authorized or required by law to be taken.' Such affidavits and depositions, when made, are legal papers and the taking of some of them has been recognized as the function of a notary public from the earliest times. Proffatt on Notaries, 2d Ed., § 19. For the reasons stated in People v. Kimsey, Colo., 74 P.2d 663, we think the advertisement, 'legal papers made,' is not sufficient nor indeed any proof that the respondent intended to exceed his authority in the making of legal papers other than those which he was authorized by statute to make. Those reading his advertisement should not, and we cannot assume that they did, understand that respondent intended to usurp the functions of an attorney by making legal documents--other than those he was authorized by law to make--as a practice or business.
It remains to be determine whether the displaying of the sign in the window of the respondent's office containing the matter above quoted, constitutes contempt of court.
The Attorney General discusses three propositions which he says arise out of the admitted facts: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bessemer Bar Ass'n v. Fitzpatrick
...because the act complained of was trivial: Appeal of Cichon, 227 Wis. 62, 278 N.W. 1 (for acting as agent or attorney); People v. Wicks, 101 Colo. 397, 74 P.2d 665 advertising as an attorney); In re McCallum, 186 Wash. 312, 57 P.2d 1259 (for office practice). This will illustrate the action......