J. SAYOU GLAPOH, Appellant, v. BOLADO SAWMILLING COMPANY, by and through its manager, LORENZO BOLADO, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM RULING OF MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH, PRESIDING IN CHAMBERS. Argued April 27, 1970. Date of decision not indicated. 1. The import of a restraining order where injunctive relief has been obtained should not be extended unreasonably so as to bar the consideration of compelling necessities subsequently arising, requiring modification of such order, even by a single Justice presiding in chambers who reviews the order of the Supreme Court in the light of an application made in reference thereto. A court possesses inherent powers, where the ends of justice require it, to initiate motions for continuance in causes before it. The Supreme Court demands that lawyers practicing in the courts of Liberia, at all times observe a high degree of courtesy toward the courts and the judges therein, and should such gentlemanly conduct not be maintained, it will hold the offending lawyers liable in contempt. 2. 3. The appellee had been adjudged in contempt of the Supreme Court for continuing sawmilling operations during the pendency of an appeal in an injunction suit. The Justice presiding in chambers subsequently, upon application by the company, permitted the posting of a bond by the company, in order for operations to continue. He cited the financial needs of the Government, the welfare of some three hundred families dependent upon the work, and the fact that title to the roo acres, claimed by appellant, of the 32,000 acre tract involved, had not yet been determined. An appeal was taken from the ruling. Ruling affirmed, counsel for appellant adjudged in contempt of Court for their conduct during argument and their positions taken in their brief and each fined $250.00. Stephen Dunbar and Tilman Dunbar for appellant. Peter ilmos George for appellee. 108 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL 109 delivered the opinion of the Court. The subject of this opinion is a ruling by Mr. Justice Wardsworth in chambers during the interval between the March Term, 1969, and the October Term, 1969, of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Lorenzo Bolado, manager of the Bolado Sawmilling Company in the Nyanvorquellie Chiefdom, Bong County, is conducting operations for the company under a concession granted by the Government of Liberia, on a thirty-two thousand acre tract. J. Sayou Glapoh, the appellant, claimed title to one hundred acres thereof, and brought an injunction suit against the company. Judge Roderick N. Lewis, presiding over the February Term, 1968, of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in Bong County, accepted a bond from the defendant and thereafter, upon motion, dissolved the injunction. From this ruling dissolving the injunction, the plaintiff below excepted and brought an appeal before this Court. Before this appeal was reached by us, the plaintiff filed a bill of information drawing the Court’s attention to the fact that notwithstanding the pending appeal, the defendant continued operations rendering it liable for contempt of court. On June 16, 1969, this Court ruled the company in contempt and fined it $5oo. The opinion adjudging the company in contempt concluded : “Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the bond under which respondent is operating is invalid and void. The informant has established the fact alleged in his bill of information, and it is hereby sustained and the respondent adjudged guilty of contempt of court and fined in the sum of $5oo., to be paid over to the Marshal immediately as of the date of the mandate to the court below, with costs of these proceedings ; and he and all persons operating under the respondent, are 110 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS hereby ordered to desist from further operation until the appeal in the injunction suit pending before the Supreme Court is terminated That upon the payment of the fine by respondent, the Marshal shall deposit it with the Internal Revenue authorities, obtain an official receipt therefor and exhibit it to His Honor the Chief Justice. And it is hereby so ordered.” The Court thereafter adjourned. The only issue determined in the opinion referred to was the conduct of the respondent, amounting to contempt. The question of title has not yet been determined, nonetheless, plaintiff is still asserting rights thereto. Moreover, the injunction suit seems designed merely to frustrate the operations of the company, which a court of equity cannot in good conscience countenance. After Court adjourned sine die, Mr. Justice Wardsworth assumed duties in chambers, to whom, after the fine had been paid, the respondent below, now the appellee, made application urging the Justice in view of the overriding public good and the long delay inevitable in the appeal procedure, to approve a bond for petitioner’s indemnification and permit operations to be resumed. Counsel for Glapoh argued that the application was an attempt to have the Justice review the judgment of the Supreme Court en banc, which he was not authorized to do. They further argued that under the doctrine of stare decisis no single Justice has the right to issue a restraining writ that would have a tendency to affect any decision of the Court en banc. They cited the Constitution and denied hardship as a cause for re-consideration of a court’s order. In his ruling, the Justice concluded : “Of the three branches of Government, the law requires none shall interfere with the functions of the others. In this case, in my opinion, it would be interferring with the right already granted for the sawmilling company to have its operation stagnated LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 111 merely for a right that has not been established according to law ; therefore, it is my opinion that the relief sought under the submission should not be disregarded by me. “After carefully considering respondent-appellee’s submission and petitioner-appellant’s return, I regard respondent’s submission as containing cogent and reasonable arguments, that is, the oppressive effect of the injunction is calculated to have a damaging effect on Government revenues during this austerity period. It has a tendency economically to impose a stringent condition on a number of Liberian families and cause great damage or loss to the repondents. “Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances surrounding this cause, I hereby grant the respondent the relief sought, with the provision that the respondent file a valid indemnity bond in the sum of $8,000.00, with legally qualified sureties to be approved by the justice in chambers. Costs disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered.” Appellant brought his appeal from the ruling before the full bench. Upon argument, counsel for petitioner were insulting to the Justice and to the entire Court and appeared to be completely without respect toward both. All lawyers are required to exhibit a high degree of courtesy toward judges and the courts and must at all times behave like gentlemen or suffer the consequences. The Court explained the reason it imposed a fine for contempt. “When the Supreme Court has acquired jurisdiction by the completion of an appeal from an order dismissing an injunction, the Court has the inherent right to maintain the status quo of the parties to the appeal by punishing for contempt any person who intentionally violates the injunction.” The ruling of the Justice did not frustrate the decision of this Court in the contempt proceedings, for his ruling 112 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS was based on the fact that title had not been established in the petitioner. Injunction does not lie where title to real property is an issue involved, more especially where the party sought to be enjoined sets up adverse possession to said land. Hence, the language of an order of injunction should not be extended to cover acts not fairly and reasonably within its meaning. Young et al. v. Einbree, sLLR 212 (1936). We have here a concession operating under an agreement with the Republic of Liberia, granting to the company thirty-two thousand acres of land of which the respondent claims title to one hundred acres, which the company disputes. Approximately three hundred Liberian citizens were employed in the company’s operations, and it is clear that the Justice granted the relief sought in accord with equitable doctrines by requiring a bond in the sum of $8,000.00 to protect the contested right of the respondent while preventing total cessation of the sawmilling operations from which the Government and numerous citizens benefited. The appellant argued that: “Courts of justice are not concerned with whatever hardships a party may be made to suffer which might grow out of a court’s proceeding.” Under doctrines of equitable consideration such position is untenable. “Independent of statute, courts have, as an incident to their power to hear and determine causes, the power to grant continuances. This power may be exercised by the court upon its own motion where the administration of justice requires it.” 12 AM. JUR., Continuances, � 4. Under all of these circumstances, we have no alternative but to affirm the ruling of the Justice, with the additional provision that because of the insinuations made in argument and in their briefs, counsellors Stephen Dunbar, Tilman Dunbar, and S. Raymond Horace, which are LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 113 regarded to be contemptuous in effect and reflect on the dignity and authority of this Court, it is our unanimous opinion that they be fined each and respectively the sum of $250.00, to be paid within seventy-two hours after rendition of judgment in this case, or the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court be authorized to inform all subordinate courts of their suspension from the practice of law, directly or indirectly, until the said contempt fine imposed is paid. The Marshal of this Court is hereby ordered to collect the said fines in the total sum of $750.00, deposit same in the Bureau of Internal Revenues, and obtain a receipt therefor. A mandate shall be sent to all subordinate courts informing them of this judgment. Costs are hereby ruled against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed; counsel for appellant also adjudged in contempt of court.