
    
      MICHEL DE ARMAS' CASE.
    
    East’n District.
    
      June, 1821.
    An attorney suspended from his practice, for using indecorous language to the court.
    The judges having noticed indecorous expressions, in a written application of this gentleman for a rehearing, in the case of St. Romes vs. Pore, determined during the last term, ante 30, requested the clerk to draw his attention thereto. On the report of the latter, that the former declined amending his application, an order was made, that he answer for the contempt.
    He appeared accordingly, admitted himself to be the writer of the paper, and in his attempt at a justification, forgot himself so far as to suggest that the court were disposed to punish him, as the author of some publications, in which he had denounced, in the Ami des loix, their declaration made in May last. 9 Martin, 642.
    
    
      
       It was represented, in that paper, as an assumption? of legislative powers, and as an evidence of the courts evil disposition towards that portion of the citizens of this state, whose vernacular language is not the English.
    
   Martin, J.

Considering the application to be written in arrogant and indecorous language, such as the law forbids us to suffer, I think the attorney ought to be suspended from his practice in this court during twelve months. Part. 3.

Mathews, J.

I concur in this opinion.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that Michel de Armas be suspended from his practice in this court, for twelve months.  