CARTOON CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 89, 11 October 1913, Page 9

CARTOON CASE

WAS THERE CONTEMPT OF COURT? DEFENDING COUNSEL'S CONTENTIONS TRIAL BY JUDGE AND JURY URGED. A further stage was reached yesterday afternoon after The Post, had gone to press in the hearing by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court (comprising their Honours the - Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Juatice Sim) of the motion by the Hon. A. L. Herdman (Attorney- General) for the committal to prison for contempt of Court' of , William John Geddis and William Blomfield, proprietors of the Now Zealand Observer, for publishing in that journal a cartoon and a sketch, which it was alleged imputed "bias," "corruption," and "partiality" by his Honour Mr. Justice 13dwards in his iudicial rapacity. The At-tomey-Gtmeral was represented by Dr. J W. Salmond, K.C.t Mr. Geddis by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., Sir John Findlay, 'K.C., with Mr. G. Samuels; Mr. Blomfield by Mr. T. Cotter, K.C., with Mr. G. H. Fell. Sir John Findlay, further addressing tho Court, mentioned in passing tho case, Regina versus Gray, referred to the previous day by the Solicitor-General. Ho admitted that this was an authority that had to be met. It was a case, however, in which tho defendant had admit- ! ted the contempt and the Court was not called uoon to decide whether what he had eakf was contempt of Court. * The only thing tho Court had to do was to fix the. penalty. It had been ruled in th© case that any reflection whatever upon a Judge was contempt of Court, but he (counsiil) submitted that that ruling was too high. Sir Joshua Williams: You contend that had the allegations in the ' present ' case been made in a serious article that they could 1 not have been considered contempt of Court? And you further say that although comment may be insulting it still remains fair comment? The Chief Justice: You mean that if there is a libel dealing only with one caso that ohe action cannot proceed? LIBEL' CONFINED TO ONE CASE. Counsel went on to add that tho Solicitor-General's contention was that if the offender hadj say, accused a Judge of i misconducfr— living immorally, for instance—it might possibly nob affect his authority, but it would no doubt lower bis prestige. But this would not justify proceedings for -contempt of Court. The questions to be decided were — (1) Whether tho Coart could punish by summary process any libel made upon the Court after a case was over? and (2) If any such libel could be . so punished, whether it must bo a libel such as could be shown to have directly interfeied with justice? In the present action the libel was confined to one ease only, and could not possibly interfere with the administration of justice in tho future, and it was submitted on these grounds that these proceedings must fail. The affidavit of .Chief-Detective Macmahon declared that the cartoon attributed to .the learned Judge unju&tnesa And partiality in his conduct of the Patereon divorce case, and that he had shown favour to the respondent. And that was what tho Crown relied on. If the cartoon meant no more than that in this ■ particular case, then he (counsel) submitted with confidence ' that it 'could not be meant to interfere with the future administration of justice. Further, he .wished to point out that the imputation of partiality was not contempt. Because a man honestly expressed his opinion' that a Judg3 in a particular case snowed partiality, was it contempt? The Solicitor-General remarked that he had only contended that it was contempt of Court when a- libel concerned a Judge in his judicial capacity. Sir John Findlay : Suppose the allegations made in the cartoon that the Judge had shown distinct partiality had been mad© in .a, leading article, would my friend the Solicitor-jGeneral say that was contempt of Court? The Solicitor-General : I wouldn't like, to say it' wasn't. (Laughter.) Sir John Findlay : I can quite understand my , friend tho Solicitor-General hesitating to answer such a question. Mr. Justice Denniston interjected that ho did not know how a picture gratuitously insulting could be held to be comment. Sir John Findlay : Some of the wellmeant cartoons of Judges are anything but flattering. (Laughter.) Mr. Justice Cooper : I agree with you. But we know that. they have attempted to do their best. Some members of the Bar have not escaped. (Laughter.) NO CHANCE, TO SHOW JUSTIFICA- • TI0N". Sir John Findlay, ' proceeding, said that his, side were forbidden to justify their allegations or, the fairness oi their comment. This- being so, he submitted that it was not a case in which the discretion of the Court should be exercised against them. They contended that the Solicitor-General should be left to proceed in the ordinary way before tho ordinary tribunals. It would seem startling to any reasonable man if an offender could not in these proceedings attempt to show the truth of his comment and yet have to submit to punishment. It was admitted that this was not in, accord with the spirit of the times. The allegation" 1 was a misdemeanour for winch tho offender might be sent to gaol, and this being the 'case, tho Solicitor-General should bring the action before the ordinary tribunals. MR. COTTER'S ADDRESS. / Mr. Cotter next addressed the Court ! on behalf of Mr. Blomfield, opening with the remark that he did not wish to cover any of the ground already touched I upon. For this reason he would adopt | tho argument already put forward by ' his learned friend that the operation of the Crimes Act destroyed the right ! of this Court to deal with the case by | summary jurisdiction. Also, he would ! adopt the argument that tho Court's | power to punish, for contempt of Court was obsolete. As far as he knew there had never in Great Britain been an at- | tempt to punish the drawer of a cartoon under this provision. If, for instance, the cartoon had contained no female figure, no inclined scales of justice — t ' j Mr. Justice Denniston : You have forgotten tho bandage over the eyes. • Mr. Cotter (facetiously) : The bandage may hide some of tho imperfections I the cartoon made prominent. " KNUTS " AND THE STEAM HAMMER. .' Reiterating his query, Mr. Cotter asked, -if tho things he had mentioned had not been inserted in the picture, ! could it be said that' there was (to say nothing of the grossness of the picture) anything to render the publisher liable for contempt of Court? Another point he would like to call their Honours' attention to was that the paper was a comic production,. It was not like an ordinary paper and did not have to bo judged with the same degree of nicety. Were these proceedings nob something like an attempt to bring out a Dread—~u* Ln nunish a pleasure steamer, for

instance? Were they not something like bringing a steam hammer to crack a nut? (Laughter.)- ' Sir John Findlay : K-n-u-t. ■ (More laughter.) Mr. Cotter : We can spell it in this case without tho "k."' Mr. Cotter then quoted the Common Law of England as showing that not only was anyone justified in criticising the administration of a Judge or a Court, but was actually invited to do so in ai fair and liberal spirit, although it was a privilege to bo exercised 'when the "case was over and beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage proceedings were ad joumed until 10.30 a.m. on Monday. 1