DocketNumber: No. 2613
Citation Numbers: 226 P. 309, 48 Nev. 1
Judges: By the Court, COLEMAN, C.J.:
Filed Date: 6/4/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
We will not consider the first reason, since we think the motion should be granted on the ground that the reply is frivolous. The opening paragraph of the reply reads:
"It is with much regret that we take up the task of replying to the alleged petition for rehearing on this *Page 10 appeal. Regret that we should even find it necessary to read a scurrilous screed, composed almost wholly of balderdash and billingsgate, falsehood and fiction, abuse and vile and contemptuous insinuations, against not only the defendant and his witnesses and counsel, but also against the trial court, which rendered its judgment in favor of the defendant, and the members of this court, which affirmed that judgment."
Throughout the reply many such statements may be found.
We will not undertake to pass upon the merits of the statements quoted. Be they true or false we can see no justification or excuse for the use of such language, either in an oral or a written argument. Certainly a court, engaged in the consideration and disposition of serious matters, should not have its time taken up by having to read such charges. Such language can in no way aid the court in solving the problems presented, and its mind should not be influenced against a litigant or counsel, or diverted from the real purpose of its undertaking. 3 C.J. 1432, 3; Green v. Elbert,
We think the reply to the petition should be stricken.
It is so ordered.