The Hastings Standard Published Daily. TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1896. CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Hastings Standard, Issue 37, 9 June 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1896. CONTEMPT OF COURT.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

A clear definition of what is really contempt of court has long been wanted, and the power of Judges to commit journalists to prison for publishing statements calculated to prejudice a case sub jicUcc has never been defined. A satisfactory decision has been recently given by the Lord Chief Justice of England that will be hailed with delight by newspapers and the public. It has been the general opinion that any publication whatsoever bearing on cases suh jwUi-c, however impartial and colorless, is contempt of court, and liable to punishment as such. The popular opinion is completely upset by the decision of Lord Russell, and is therefore worth recording for general information. A newspaper published two articles alleged to amount to contempt of court. One of them stated that a Mr Gowan was charged with arson, and the other was a report of statements made by the Chief Constable of the county at a meeting of the committee of the county, bearing upon certain other charges against Mr Gowan. On the publication of the articles, Mr Gowan obtained a rule nisi, to commit the sub-editor and publisher of the pape* for contempt of

court. When the case came before the Chief Justice he discharged the rule without hesitation, and in doing so made some general remarks. Applications for contempt, he said, were becoming far too numerous. The power of committal may, in some instances, be necessary ; but it should only be exercised in extreme and serious cases. It is an arbitrary power, restive entirely on the taste and fancy of the Judge, and therefore to be administered with the very greatest caution. "To make it a contempt," said the Lord Chief Justice, " there must be something intended, or, at any rate, calculated to prejudice the fair trial." The articles complained of, he held, were not of this nature. They simply stated facts for the benefit of the readers of the paper. These facts were ex parte statements no doubt; but they were frankly given as such, without any allegation either of their truth or falsehood. The decision is of extreme importance, for had his Lordship decided otherwise it would have been impossible to quote in any newspaper any criminal charge brought against any person before he was condemned, and Detective lvirby might, under such circumstances, send all the journalists of New Zealand to prison. The decision of Lord Russell leaves the power to commit for contempt of Court intact, so far as any real attempt to prejudice justice goes, and only guards against its wanton and trivial application, which lias been used to harass entirely honest and innocent newspapers.