DIVERSION IN COURT.
Observer, Volume XXI, Issue 1194, 16 November 1901, Page 3
About this newspaper
DIVERSION IN COURT.
The Comptroller of Dogs and the Learned Doctor.
QUITE an extensive field of diversion is opened up to litigants in our courts of law by the unchallenged exploits of William George Garrard, comptroller of unlicensed dogs, in the Police Court the other day. William George was the complainant in a trivial suit in which one John J)riscoll was charged with using provoking language. Dr. Laishley appeared as counsel for Driscoll. During the conduct of the case, it is alleged that Dr. Laishley made use of some words to Garrard that aroused his ire. Be that as it may, the irrepressible Garrard seized the learned Doctor by the throat, shook him energetically, and then threw him under a chair in the corner.
It, is due to Messrs Moran and Morgan, the two presiding 1 jaypays, to say that they fully preserved their dignity. They didn't scramble dowu from the bench and enter into the spirit of the fun by exclaiming "*a ring, a ring," and neither did they lay any bets on the issue of the combat. Not by any means. They preserved all the dignity that can be expected from up^to-date labour jay-pays, and having watched the diversion to its conclusion, recalled the attention of the principals in the " debate " to the delayed issue by the quiet remark : " Now, gentlemen, we will proceed with the business of the court." So much for their own dignity.
But what about the dignity of the court ? If the precedent established by Mr William George Gairard is to become recognised by our judicial tribunals, we shall have the next set of jaypays adjourning the Police Court to watch the issue of a dog-fight on the courtroom floor, or a prisoner on trial at the Supreme Court climbing tip on the bench and banging Mr Justice ConollyV hend against the wall for allowing an aspersion upon
his " karackter." Indeed, it is difficult to say how far the license allowed to William George Garrard may not lead us. Lawyers will find it necessary to enter the court armed with bludgeons or bull-dog revolvers, or they will require to conduct their cases from a bulletproof turret. The possibilities of the new system are very great.
The trouble between Mr Garrard and Dr. Laisbley is not in the question. There is a greater consideration involved : that of maintaining the dignity of our courts of law, and it is a thousand pities that Messrs Moran and Morgan were not equal to the task of maintaining that dignity. Probably, wiih all their judicial training, they had never heard of such a thing as contempt of court. More'a the pity. Certainly, if it is competent for a litigant to seize a lawyer opposed to him by the throat, and bump him on the floor, our courts of law will speedily become ph.ce.- of public, diversion beside whiek even Doutiybrook Fair will require to hide its diminished head. Now. gentlemen, having enjoyed this little pleasantry, let. us procod with the business of the cour.
