Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Court dress in question again

i.Xeui Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON. The Attorney-General (Dr Finlay) intends to discuss the question of court dress with the Law Society and magistrates.

Dr Finlay said on his return from Australia that he had his own views on the subject, but preferred not to disclose them at present. He added that he had been disturbed some time ago about the case of a witness who was criticised for appearing in court in working clothes. As the question had again arisen, in the case of Auckland lawyer, Mr B. O. Nicholson, who wanted to appear in court in shorts, it was appropriate that further thought should be given to the subject. As the heat wave reached its peak last Wednesday, Christchurch solicitors thought enveiously of their colleagues in Blenheim. Certainly, the rules of dress in the Magistrates’ Courts in Christchurch were relaxed sufficiently for them to take of their jackets, but in Blenheim, solicitors are permitted to appear during the hottest months in opennecked shirts, walk shorts, and shoes and socks. One Christchurch solicitor who has been doing his office work in shorts found himself unexpectedly faced with a court appearance on Wednesday. He donned his firm’s “court

suit” and had it forcibly brought home to him that he i had gained weight over the holiday season. According to his colleagues, the waistband of the trousers was so tight that during the court hearing he almost “keeled over.” The most uncomfortable lawyers in Christchurch were those barristers appearing in the upstairs Supreme Court, which has a relatively low ceiling and poor ventilation. There is precedent for counsel in Supreme Court hearings—and for that matter, in Privy Council hearings—being invited to remove their wigs, but the precedent was not followed. The barristers were also obliged to wear the gowns of their profession, but this was less of a hardship as noone inquired what they were wearing underneath.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19730212.2.39

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33148, 12 February 1973, Page 4

Word Count
320

Court dress in question again Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33148, 12 February 1973, Page 4

Court dress in question again Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33148, 12 February 1973, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert