Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE.

J-J-J.XJ wxi xojiaj. j. . vx 1 uwuja J. vaioju* "TO THE EDITOR, Sir— The writer of an article in the Timaru JSvening. Telegraph, re-published in yesterday’s paper, affirms that “Judges and Magistrates possess ‘ almost unlimited ’ power to punish persons for supposed contempt of Court.” This is an error. No doubt the Judges of, the Supreme Court possess virtually unlimited power in this respect; but Magistrates are on an entirely different footing. Their power of punishing for contempt is strictly limited, and the question involved in Mr. Purnell’s case seems to be whether a Magistrate has any power whatever to commit a barrister to prison for alleged contempt of Court, while engaged in discharging his functions and cloaked with the immunities and privileges of his profession.—lam, &c., Lex. July 9th, 1880.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18800713.2.9.2

Bibliographic details

Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 125, 13 July 1880

Word Count
135

THE CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 125, 13 July 1880

Working