ISAAC ALPHA, Informant, v. AARON TUCKER,

Respondent. BILL OF INFORMATION TO ASCERTAIN INADVERTENT ERROR BY JUSTICE PRECIDING IN CHAMBERS. Argued May 13, 1970. Decided June 12, 1970. 1. No one denies that a Justice presiding in chambers may only rule in accord with prior decisions of the full Court ; in the matter of the interpretation of such ruling, the full Court, and the individual justices comprising it, will seek only to effect justice and the sovereignty of the Supreme Court as manifested in its opinions. In a series of events arising from a suit of ejectment, first commenced in 1955 by the informant herein against the respondent, the record of the proceedings and the orders resulting therefrom became clouded and uncertain, leading to the present proceeding. The respondent applied to Mr. Justice Mitchell in chambers for relief after the lower court, in enforcing the Supreme Court’s mandate, ordered respondent removed from the land at issue. The Justice set aside the order of the lower court and the informant applied to the full Court, alleging, in effect, that the ruling of the Justice negated two prior decisions of the Supreme Court. The majority disagreed and found that the ruling was in accord with the Court’s opinions, but for the sake of greater clarity in a clouded situation, though affirming the ruling of the Justice, the Court ordered a re-survey of the property at issue. As a further incident to these proceedings, counsel for informant was adjudged in contempt of the Court and fined accordingly, with which the minority also disagreed. 0. Natty B. Davis for informant. No appearance for respondent. MR. Court. JUSTICE SIMPSON delivered the opinion of the 120 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 121 This is the third time, and we hope the final time, that proceedings have been heard in this Court predicated upon the same subject matter, a controversy in respect of a portion of property situated on Newport Street, in the City of Monrovia. The submission upon which the present proceedings are based was styled : “Informant’s formal submission regarding possible inadvertence on part of court.” Count one of the submission held that in 1959, while sitting en’banco, this Court decided a matter of prohibition which grew out of a land dispute between informant Isaac Alpha and Aaron Tucker. It was further stated that the Court found the ejectment suit to be unmeritorious and dismissed it, at the same time holding that the parties retain their status quo prior to the filing of the suit. The same count one additionally stated that at a subsequent time the respondent violated the decision of this Court handed down in 1959, and thereupon he was held in contempt and accordingly penalized by this Court. Reference was made to these two opinions of the Supreme Court, and the Court was requested to take judicial notice of its own record. Count two initially discussed the matter of the filing of a petition for reargument which was signed by a concurring Justice, who subsequently withdrew his signature. Count two then proceeded to state, and in view of the gravity that we attach to what the remainder of the count did in fact state, we shall include in this opinion the pertinent portion : “This having been done, the decision and judgment of the Court rendered en banco were ordered enforced and it was by and from the enforcement of said judgment that proceedings were instituted by respondent in the chambers of Mr. Justice Lawrence E. Mitchell, the Justice then presiding in chambers, and which brought forth from the said Justice in chambers a ruling that negated informant’s right to the said piece of 122 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS land, but placed respondent in possession of same by a formal writ of possession, thus abrogating, setting aside and making the decisions and judgments of this Court rendered in the prohibition case in 1959, and the contempt of court case in 1963, void and of no legal effect.” Count three thereupon alleged that the Justice may have inadvertently overlooked or lost sight of the decision and judgment of this Court which were rendered en banco. In the circumstances, the informant respectfully presented the entire case with all of the facts and attending circumstances to the bench en banco, for the purpose of affording the necessary relief, “as most certainly it must have been an inadvertence for a Justice sitting in chambers to make a ruling unilaterally, which abrogates or sets aside a decision and judgment rendered by this Court sitting en banco.” The prayer in the submission concluded : “Wherefore, your informant most respectfully prays that the Court sitting en banco will, in the review of this submission, render such decision upholding the two previous decisions rendered by this Court en banco, hereinabove referred to. That the Court will grant such further and other relief as the nature of the case requires and the ends of justice demand.” Although filed on May 27, 1965, this submission was not taken up by the Court until this present sitting. At the call of the case, when the records were being read in open Court, and the submission itself was being read, the Court became a bit concerned about the tenor of the submission, especially so when a serious charge was, in a veiled manner, being preferred against one of the Justices. However, with the view to administering justice with cold neutrality, we proceeded to inquire of counsel for the informant, in the person of 0. Natty B. Davis, what specific portion of the ruling made by the Justice wantonly abrogated and rendered ineffectual two prior recorded opin- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 123 ions and judgments of the Supreme Court. As the crux of the case centers around the ruling of the Justice, we proceeded to inquire of this ruling. Memory being as evasive as it sometimes is, coupled with the fact that the selfsame Justice was herein being seriously charged, glances were directed at him and from the bench he himself even mused that he could not remember rendering any such ruling. Counsellor Davis was at this stage requested to throw some light upon the ruling which he had so emphatically referred to. He thereupon importuned the Court to permit him to have his client himself come before the bench and make certain clarifications to the Court. Due to the fact that the record shows representation solely by way of counsel, the particular request for pro se representation of the informant was denied. Counsel at this stage found himself in an apparent predicament, for he claimed that the submission was filed predicated upon information received by him from his client, for he was personally outside the country when the ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell was made. The Court then proceeded to have read its two previous opinions referred to, supra, the second of which, incidentally, was delivered by Mr. Justice Mitchell himself. The first opinion which grew out of the prohibition proceedings had held that the map submitted by the Director of the Bureau of Surveys, of the Department of Public Works and Utilities, in the person of Mr. G. Slagmolen, clearly shows that the defendant in the ejectment suit was not encroaching upon any property owned by the plaintiff and, in the circumstances, both parties should remain in the position in which they found themselves at the time of the filing of the suit in ejectment. The Court in the prohibition proceedings further held that the trial judge had erred in ordering issued a writ of possession in the ejectment proceedings, since the survey report had clearly shown that no encroachment existed. The contempt proceedings which were subsequently 124 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS brought showed in the record that Tucker also had been fined in the sum of $zoo.00, or alternatively, ordered imprisoned for failure to pay. These proceedings were adjudicated primarily upon the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain contempt proceedings of the nature and type filed by informant in the contempt proceedings. The Court this time held that it was possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to try the contempt proceedings in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of having strict adherence given to its judgments, and mandates in pursuance thereof. The actual issue of contempt was never traversed by respondent in the return as filed by him, therefore, it was never adjudicated on its merits by the Court. The determination was that of adjudging respondent guilty of contempt due to the tacit admission of the execution of a contumacious act by the respondent. A careful inspection of these two opinions showed without a doubt that this Court intended that the parties remain in status quo. When counsel for informant was pressed to show the marked deviation from the two previous rulings by Mr. Justice Mitchell in his ruling of 1965, the Court was importuned to suspend hearing of the matter to allow counsel for informant an opportunity to fully acquaint himself with all attending facts and circumstances. He thereupon filed a second submission wherein he petitioned the Court to order a full-scale investigation into the allegations contained in his first submission. The case was then again suspended, and upon the resumption thereof, the ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell, as handed down on Friday, February 5, 1965, it being the fifth day’s session of Court, was read in its totality. Due to the stress that has been laid on the supposed irregularity attached to this ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell, we shall herein include the last portion thereof. “I cannot concede that the Chief Justice did give such orders to Judge Morris because the question of possession of the land was not contemplated in the judg- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 125 ment ; therefore, when this case was called for hearing the Court approached counsel on both sides to resolve the issues of the subject matter, who conceded the view and counsellor J. Dossen Richards, for respondent Isaac Alpha, informed the Court that he has filed a return for his client only to justify himself as being innocent of contempt of Court, because if there were any acts done without the order of this Court, it was done by the court below, that is, Judge Morris, and not his client. Counsellor Joseph F. Dennis for informant conceded the position of counsellor Richards, and said that he too is of the same opinion and moved the Court for a reversal of the act of Judge Morris. This being the case, it is our ruling that the court below having erred in dispossessing Mr. Tucker of the very tract of land which the opinion of this Court concluded he was possessed of erred in doing so, and therefore, upholds the opinion of this Court delivered by Mr. Justice Pierre on January 15, 196o. The parties hereto, that is to say, Mr. Aaron Tucker and Mr. Isaac Alpha, are hereby ordered to resort to their status quo, as they were before when the suit was originally filed in 1959, and according to the opinion referred to, and delivered by Mr. Justice Pierre, and that whatever ruling was made by Judge Morris is irregular and the enforcement be and the same is hereby revoked. Costs in these proceedings are disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered.” After this ruling had been read, counsellor Davis immediately arose and requested a withdrawal of his second submission which had urged the Court to order a fullscale investigation into the facts and circumstances attending upon the alleged ouster of his client from premises which he had been ordered to remain upon by order of the Court. Nothing however was then said by counsel regarding the flagrant attack on Mr. Justice Mitchell that he had made in the submission filed on May 27, 1965. 126 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Being one of the oldest practicing counsellors at this bar, coupled with the fact that the counsellor is also a former Associate Justice of this Court, it was our hope and our ardent desire that he would at that juncture exemplify a degree of penitence for the wrong that he had meted out to the Justice. Instead, being totally engrossed in the substance of the case, and the restoration of his client to land supposedly wrongfully dispossessed of, while on his feet he continued by importuning the Court to make certain that its mandate of 196o, growing out of the prohibition proceedings, be strictly observed. There is an adage hoary with age that courts generally do not do for litigants that which they ought to do for themselves. An examination of the submission filed by counsel for informant shows that it deals solely with the issue of the alleged illegal ouster of his client from premises which, by order of this Court, he was to have remained on. Counsel then requested that a second look be taken at the ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell which had, he claimed, in effect abrogated and made ineffectual two prior opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court. A reading of the ruling quoted above, clearly shows that it in no manner abrogated nor rendered ineffectual any prior judgment of this Court. Quite to the contrary, the ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell upheld the two prior opinions, one of which he had himself written. In strict adherence in respect of the principle requiring adjudication of only those issues which have been properly raised, this Court would at this time simply dismiss the submission of informant and have the matter ended. Before closing this opinion, we should like to state that we have just received, an hour or so prior to coming into Court, the dissenting opinion being filed by two of our colleagues. The right of dissent is inherent in each and every one of us as Justices ; however, we are of the firm conviction that personalities should be divorced from, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 127 issues when we sit upon such a high pedestal for the purpose of dispensing justice. The novel practice of bringing into the body of opinions exchanges during our deliberations is upsetting, to say the least. However, we here deliberate and judge only in accordance with our consciences, the rest is left with public opinion and the God of our Father, to judge. However, this is a tribunal of denier resort, the tabernacle of ultimate justice and, therefore, we must look carefully at the end results of justice and not solely at the vehicle or instrumentality through which justice is dispensed. Since there is a feeling that the mandate of this Court has not been strictly complied with in accordance with its terms, it is here adjudged that the judge presiding over the Sixth Judicial Circuit will nominate a qualified surveyor and have each of the parties hereto also nominate a surveyor, and they shall proceed to the area in controversy with the plot that served as the basis for the Court’s determination in the 1959 opinion referred to, supra, and make certain that both parties are upon the premises they were to remain upon in accordance with the judgment and mandate of this Court growing out of the prohibition proceedings hereinabove specifically mentioned. Due to the contumacious act of counsellor 0. Natty B. Davis in condemning a Justice of this Court whose only protection that he has available to him is the power to hold in contempt, the counsellor is hereby found guilty of contempt of Court, and fined in the sum of $3oo.00 to be paid over to the Marshal of this Court within ninety-six hours of the time of the rendition of this judgment, failing which he shall be denied the privilege of practicing law within this Republic for a period of one calendar year. Costs are ruled against informant. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed, as modified; contempt of court adjudged. 12S LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WILSON and MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS dissenting. Those of us to whom the duty befalls to sit in judgment of our fellow man must in doing so be ever cognizant our decisions are exposed not only to man but to God ; and it behooves us, therefore, to do so in reverence, the fear of God, and without respect of persons, keeping in mind the blind symbol of justice we represent, which .knows no friend nor foe, but is controlled solely by the facts involved in the given case, and the law controlling. It is because of the foregoing, from which we are unwilling to deviate, that we cannot bring ourselves to agree with the majority opinion of our colleagues, and have elected, therefore, to herein register the grounds leading to our difference in opinion. The history of these controversies dates back as far as 1955 to 1956, when Isaac Alpha instituted an action of ejectment against Aaron Tucker, contending that Aaron Tucker had entered upon and was witholding from him without any justifiable cause whatsoever, a parcel of land. After pleadings rested, because of the contention of Mr. Tucker that the land he occupied was separate and distinct from that of Mr. Alpha, the matter was submitted to a board of arbitrators who reported in substance that not only were the parcels of land separate and distinct but that Mr. Tucker had not encroached upon Mr. Alpha’s property. A judgment was entered, quite strangely, in favor of Alpha and a writ of possession issued, which would have placed him in possession of block no. 8o, in the City of Monrovia. Fortunately, before this precept could be executed, one Marie Davies Johnson proceeded to the chambers of this Court and sued out a writ of prohibition, contending therein that she owned a portion of block no. 8o, which contention was supported by a map of the Department of Public Works, which found its way into the record of the ejectment trial in a manner unex- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 129 plained by the record. She further contended that she had not been summoned and was, therefore, not under the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the judgment affecting her property, by reason of the writ of possession, was illegal and should not be enforced. This Court in its decision delivered on January 15, 1960, held that the action, in view of the report of the arbitrators, should have been dismissed, and further, that the writ of possession issued was unwarranted. The parties were ordered to remain on the properties occupied by them before the institution of the ejectment suit. A few years later, the parties to the ejectment suit again appeared before us, this time in contempt proceedings instituted by Mr. Isaac Alpha, in which he complained that Mr. Tucker had, in absolute disobedience to the orders of this Court directing that the parties in ejectment confine themselves to the premises occupied by each of them before the ejectment suit, entered upon a portion of informant’s parcel of land and was in the process of constructing or had constructed a building thereon. The respondent filed a return, setting up demurrers to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the contempt proceedings, which were overruled by this Court, respondent adjudged guilty of contempt, and fined the sum of $200.00, together with costs. A copy of this opinion, with the Court’s judgment, was forwarded to the court below under mandate requiring the judge presiding to make return as to the manner of execution thereof. Hon. D. W. B. Morris, presiding by assignment over the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, received the mandate and summoned the parties to be present for the reading and disposition of said mandate. According to the minutes of the Circuit Court for Thursday, December 17, 1964, the parties were notified to be present . on that day, but only informant Alpha and his counsel appeared, whereupon, the judge entered the following rule : 130 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS “That in keeping with the mandate, supra, the plaintiff is automatically in possession of his property and he is hereby authorized to proceed with the use thereof without any further obstruction. “Since according to records of these proceedings the defendant is unauthorizedly operating on the premises which resulted in these contempt proceedings, that is, by erecting a building thereon, in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling, the sheriff in this peculiar circumstance is hereby ordered to accompany the plaintiff to the spot and see to it that defendant, or those occupying under him, be immediately removed therefrom. This is being done to avoid further obstruction of plaintiff’s occupancy by the defendant. “The clerk of this court is further ordered to make up the bill of costs which the Supreme Court also ruled be paid by the defendant, and for failure to pay them he shall also issue an execution to recover sufficient property covering the entire legal costs in these proceedings, and upon failure to satisfy said execution the clerk is further ordered to issue a commitment upon the defendant, place same in the hands of the sheriff who in the circumstance is ordered to commit the said defendant and have him kept in prison until all amounts involved incidential to these proceedings are fully paid. “That because of the Supreme Court’s special order to this court to execute its judgment immediately and file a return thereto, the clerk and the sheriff are ordered to proceed to execute these orders without delay. And it is hereby so ordered. “D. W. B. MORRIS, Resident Circuit Judge.” It appears that before this ruling could be enforced, respondent Tucker proceeded to the chambers of Mr. Justice Mitchell and made an application which is not in the record, but implicit in the ruling of Mr. Justice LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 131 Mitchell. It protested the order of Judge Morris dispossessing Tucker under the mandate to enforce the writ of possession. “This is a matter which has grown out of an ejectment suit, filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County by Isaac Alpha against Aaron Tucker. In the attempt of the court to place Alpha in possession of the property, which he claims from Tucker, Mrs. Marie Davies-Johnson filed prohibition to restrain the enforcement of the possessory orders. This matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court, and in the course of time, after consultation with the plot and map of said area in which the property is located, the Supreme Court rendered an opinion and judgment requiring the parties to remain in their original position as they were before, when this suit was originally instituted, because at the time, according to the map and plot produced, Marie Davies-Johnson was claiming title to the very spot or tract of land, as it would appear. After the rendition of judgment in this case, and for some months thereafter, counsellor 0. Natty B. Davis again appeared before the Supreme Court with information stating that Aaron Tucker had disobeyed the mandate of the Supreme Court and had begun to erect on the premises a building on the land of Isaac Alpha which, according to the map and plot produced before the Supreme Court, should have been a tract of land 132 feet away from the holding of the land of Mr. Tucker; and, therefore, obviously he meant to disregard the mandate of the Supreme Court, if that exists. The Supreme Court after this matter as heard, rendered its judgment, holding the aforesaid Mr. Tucker in contempt of Court, and required him to pay a fine of $2oo.00, together with costs of court; but he sought a pre-hearing by his petition and Mr. Chief Justice Wilson signed this petition as one of the concurring Justices. Subsequently, for some reasons 132 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS unknown to me, Chief Justice Wilson thought it necessary to withdraw his signature from the petition for re-argument, which necessarily means that the fine imposed be collected and the matter set at rest. Personally, I am not in positive knowledge of what has happened thereafter, except what the records presently reveal to me, and from which I have concluded that the Chief Justice inadvertently gave some order to D. W. B. Morris, Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, which to my mind was duplicated by similar orders to the Marshal of this Court to collect the fine of $200.00. The bill of costs was prepared accordingly by this Court, served on Mr. Tucker and paid, and that should have finalized the matter as far as the records of this Court are concerned, but instead Judge Morris also resumed jurisdiction and ordered the Sheriff of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court to dispossess Mr. Tucker of the tract of land he owned, and place Mr. Alpha in possession of the same. I cannot concede that the Chief Justice did give such orders to Judge Morris because the question of possession of the land was not contemplated in the judgment ; and, therefore, when this case was called for hearing, the Court approached counsel on both sides to resolve the issues of the subject matter, who conceded the view, and counsellor J. Dossen Richards for respondent Isaac Alpha informed the Court that he filed a return for his client only to justify himself as being innocent of contempt of Court, because if there were any act done without the order of this Court, it was done by the court below, that is, Judge Morris and not his client. Counsellor Joseph F. Dennis for informant conceded the position of counsellor Richards and said that he, too, was of the same opinion and moved the Court for a reversal of the act of Judge Morris. This being the case, it is our ruling that the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 133 court below having erred in dispossessing Mr. Tucker of the very tract of land, which the opinion of this Court concluded he was possessed of, erred in doing so and therefore, upholds the opinion of this Court delivered by Mr. Justice Pierre on the 15th day of January, 196o. The parties hereto, that is to say, Mr. Aaron Tucker and Mr. Isaac Alpha, are hereby ordered to resort to their status quo as they were before when the suit was originally filed in 1959, according to the opinion referred to, and delivered by Mr. Justice Pierre, and whatever ruling was made by Judge Morris is irregular and the enforcement be and the same is hereby revoked. Costs in these proceedings are disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered. “LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Liberia, Presiding in chambers.” Although the writ of possession ordered issued by Judge Morris has been quashed by the Justice in chambers, which prevented Tucker from being ousted from that portion of Alpha’s premises upon which he had encroached and out of which encroachment the contempt proceedings grew, we find in the record a writ of possession venued in the December Term, 1964, before Alf red L. Weeks, assigned Circuit Judge which directs, among other things : “You are hereby commanded to put Aaron Tucker, of Monrovia, the above-named respondent, in possession of that portion of said property that he has been dispossessed of, in keeping with orders of Hon. D. W. B. Morris, Resident Circuit Judge.” The return to this writ states : “On the loth day of February, 1965, I placed Aaron Tucker of Monrovia, respondent in possession of a parcel of property situated in the City of Monrovia, 134 LIBERIAN LAW REPORT S Montserrado County in keeping with orders of Co’urt. I now make this as my official returns to the office of the Clerk of this Court.” The informant, aware of all the foregoing circumstances and occurrences, petitioned this Court for redress by enforcement of its prior rulings. The application of informant’s counsel to have his client allowed to address the Court on certain obscure facts, was denied, and in lieu thereof a second affidavit was submitted requesting an investigation by the Court of the facts in the proceeding. At this point the Chief Justice circulated a letter among his colleagues suggesting a means whereby the matter might be adjudicated. To this letter Mr. Justice Mitchell replied, among other things : “Therefore, I am respectfully requesting that the matter will continue to be heard by the full bench with the exclusion of you since, to my mind, you are already prejudiced to me in this matter.” This contention of our colleague brings us to the second phase of our disagreement with the majority, to the effect that they are competent to form a quorum since Mr. Justice Mitchell, by the excerpt of his letter quoted, has placed himself in the position of a party-principal in interest. Although it is not the practice of this Court to ask a Justice to disqualify himself, under the circumstances it seems that Mr. Justice Mitchell should have done so. Let us now look at the reported opinion of this Court. In these contempt proceedings, Alpha v. Tucker, r5 LLR s6o, 565 (1964), Mr. Justice Mitchell said : “It has been established to our satisfaction that respondent does have a building under construction and that said building is situated on the premises of informant. This is absolutely contrary to our decision and mandate. Moreover, this act has been committed since LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 135 the rendition of our judgment which ordered the parties to return to and remain in their original positions.” It is our opinion, although not expressly so ordered in the reported opinion, that this Court intended the court below to remove respondent from that portion of the premises on which he had encroached. The question then arises whether or not the setting aside by the Justice of a writ of possession did nullify our two previous decisions. The majority holds that the Justice’s ruling, out of which these proceedings grew, does not in any way interfere with our two previous decisions, for nowhere in the ruling is there an order directing the ousting of informant from his premises and the possessing of respondent thereof. While this might appear to be true, we cannot overlook the age-old adage which says that actions speak louder than words. We must remember, too, that there was a writ of possession and that it was in favor of informant and not respondent. To order a re-survey indicates an awareness of the obvious and seems an ineffective device to avoid the consequences of the obvious. We come now to the third aspect of our disagreement with our colleagues, to the finding that counsel for informant is guilty of contempt of Court. Under our law, an appeal may be taken from the ruling of a Justice in chambers to the �Court en banco, where counsel has a right to, as vigorously as is necessary, attack the ruling as he would a ruling of a court below. Similarly, every party aggrieved by acts of such Justice has a right to present his grievance before this Court in whatever form is available to him. In this case, informant through his counsel averred that the Justice probably inadvertently overlooked the decision of this Court and ordered respondent possessed of informant’s premises ; Qur colleagues 136 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS contend that because the ruling of the Justice does not expressly so command, counsel for informant acted contemptuously in the charges he made. A statement which might impair respect for the trial judge made by an attorney in good faith to protect the interests of his client and in the honest belief that it is relevant and without reckless disregard of the truth or to impair the respect due to the court, has been held not to constitute contempt of court. In re Rotewein, 291 N .Y . 116, 51 N.E. znd 669. In the absence of a showing that the averments in the submission are unsupported by any facts sufficient to lead a rational mind to the conclusions set forth in the submission, or that counsel intended to belittle the Court, or rather the Justice, we cannot bring ourselves to agree that the submission made by him in good faith, believing that the writ of possession was indeed ordered issued by the Justice, constitutes contempt of Court. Penalizing a lawyer who makes a fair and truthful presentation to court of an alleged injustice done to his client by a Justice, as is being done by a majority of our colleagues especially so when one of the majority is the charged Justice, could be establishing the precedent that any Justice who makes an objectionable ruling in chambers from which an appeal may be applied for, would oblige this Court en banco to hold the lawyer appealing in contempt and thereby prejudicially blocking the processing of any appeal, which would constitute a denial of a constitutional right which this Court isn’t competent to do. What is to our opinion contemptuous in this case is the conduct of Mr. Aaron Tucker who appears to have attempted to manipulate all concerned in this proceeding, by his conduct in general and his written attempt to obtain a postponement of the hearing. We have, therefore, withheld our signatures from the judgment of the majority of the Court.