People ex rel. Bd. of Com'rs of Lake County v. Parks
| Decision Date | 19 June 1899 |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. BOARD OF COM'RS OF LAKE COUNTY v. PARKS. |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING by the people, on the relation of the board of county commissioners of Lake county, against Daniel E. Parks. Motion to strike the brief of relator. Denied.
George R. Elder, Ralph W. Smith, Charles Cavender, David M Campbell, Atty. Gen., and Calvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen for relator.
E. C Miles and Daniel E. Parks, for respondent.
An information having been filed against the respondent charging him with unprofessional conduct, a rule was entered requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred. In response to this rule, he has interposed a motion to quash the information, and has supported it by affidavits and brief. The relator has also filed a brief in answer to the propositions urged by respondent in support of his motion to quash. This brief the latter moves to have stricken from the files because it was not prepared or signed by parties having authority to appear on behalf of relator, and contains averments and insinuations wholly foreign to any issues involved in this proceeding, which have been injected for the purpose of scandal and abuse. This brief does not appear to have been prepared by either the attorney general, his assistant, or the county attorney of Lake county; but it appears from the evidence submitted, as well as the reply thereto, that its statements are not in any manner repudiated by those whose names are signed as counsel for the relator but, on the contrary, they insist that what it contains is entirely within the legitimate scope of argument upon the questions raised by the motion to quash. Within reasonable bounds, it is certainly the province of counsel to determine for themselves the line of argument to be pursued in the presentation of causes in which they may be engaged, and for the court to determine whether or not the questions argued are germane to the propositions involved, when considering them upon their merits, so that it would be an extreme case in which a motion to strike a brief should be sustained upon the ground that it was misleading, or not confined to a discussion of the points in the case.
The main question now to consider is, does the brief contain scandalous or impertinent statements, or has it gone beyond the domain of argument, in making statements regarding the respondent, to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial