Majority
p. 497The People v. Smith. insisted the proceeding was unwarranted ; that the money was retained for costs and, other demands, and if such a measure was adopted, it would be placing an officer of the court in a worse situation than any other citizen, as he would thus lose the benefit of a trial by jury.
Headnote
PENDLETON having on a former day obtained a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue against the defendant, for appropriating money collected for his client, who was in prison, now moved to have it made absolute, and in support of the application cited Say. 51. 169. 4 Burr. 2060. Stra. 621. and 1 Burr• 654.Woods, contra,
There is no doubt of the authority of the court to proceed against attornies, for misbehaviour in this summary way* The case in Say . 169- is in point. The defendant’s conduct has been so very improper, that we are bound to interfere— We accordingly, by a special rule, direct that he exhibit to the clerk of the court, in New-Yorkf within ten days, his counter demands for costs, and, if any balance appear due on liquidation of the accounts, that he pay it in twenty days, or the attachment issue,