ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 9 October 1913, Page 7

ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.

OBSERVER PROPRIETORS IN

COUIiT

11Y TBLEGKAPH —IUUJSS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, Oct. y. An unusual case came before the full bench or the Supreme Court to-day, consisting of the Uhief Justice, fenJoshua Wiiliams, and Justices Chapman, Cooper, JUennis'ton, and Sim. The action yi as a motion by the AttorneyGeneral tor an order that William lUomheid', of Auckland, and "William John Getidis, of Napier, proprietors of the £lew Zealand Observer, issued in Auckland, be committed to prison for conteinpo of Court for publishing in th& Observer oi the 6th of September, certain insulting and offensive pictures or cartoons, entitled respectively "Experience/ "Justice is not Blind/ referring to the Honorable Worley Uaccett Edwarcis, Judge of the Supreme Court; and imputing to him partiality, bia!>, corruption and impropriety in the conduct of his judicial office, which were calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.. As an alternative it was sought that the Attorneygeneral might bo at liberty to issue a writ of judgment against Biomfieid and <*eddis for contempt. The Solicitor-General, Mr Salmond, appeared in support of the application. Mr Cotter, with him Mr Fell, represented Ulomfield, and Mr Skerrett' and Sir John Findley, and with them Mr G. Samuel, appeared for Mr Geddis. A number of the Observer containing the cartoons figured prominently m Court. lfJustice is not Blind" was a full page picture. It- represented a Judge of the Court, with his eyes partially blindfolded, holding in one hand the scales of justice. One of the scales (considerably higher in the air than the opposite one) had printed across it the word "Petitioner," and on the other was the word "Respondent." In ■ tHe witness box was depicted a female (allegedly "Respondent," on'whom the Judge was broadly beaming). The other picture, entitled "Experience," represented a dandified looking person label-led-"Worley the Knut," in conversation with a gentleman styled "Mac." The dialogue printed underneath the cartoon was as follows: — ''The 'Knut': Now, look here Malcolm, what do you know of the gay and festive life? Look at me. Why, for eighteen years it has been my duty to deal with such cases. It is not likely that you know so much of the seamy 6ide of life as I do." "Mac: Ehl Whatl" The Solicitor-General said the proceedings were unusual, but not more • unusual than the occasion giving rise ' to them. The newspaper preus of New Zealand had endeavored wiht success to \ uphold the traditions of best English journals, but it was to be regretted that in this case defendants had so far forgotten those high traditions, and fallen bo far below them. i In support of the appreciation aiildavits were filed. These included ono by Chief Detective McMahon, who said the pictures had reference to the conduct of Justice Edwards in a divorce ■suit, wherein William Henry Patterson sought divorce from his wife. The detective said it would be generally understood that the pictures referred to his Honor and to the case in question. The Solicitor-General said one of the pictures, taken by itself, independent of the large picture, might well be said not to amount to contempt of Court, bat rather a defamatory hbel of a Judge in his private capacity; but taken with the larger picture, it threw light on the larger one and identified the meaning of'the picure. It was obvious it represented his Honor as a dissolute old man about town, treating ■with sensual levity the divorce and • criminal cases which came before him in his judicial capacity. It was not desirable that he should discuss the full significaance of the abominable picture. The lasciivivous leer and the sensual smile of the Judge who looked at the womaji in the witness box, and the uneven manner,in which he held •wie scales were not only an intoleraij^ifcsult to a learned Judge, but contejjypWßf Court that could not bo passed <&0& He submitted that the present was a case m which the jurisdiction of the Court oould be justifiably invoked. The Chief Justice remarked during the argument that there appeared to be no doubt about the offence. The question was as to the method of procedure. The Solicitor-General said there were three classes of jurisdiction —by inforfation, by grand jury, and summary process. The latter was limtied to contempt of Court. Mr Salmond said he had considered the two affidavits filed by defendants, and he thought he was justified in asking that they be removed from 'the file. Parts of them were unobjectionable, but he fcubmitted that a greax%art of the matter put in was not there for any bona fide purpose, and constituted abuse of records. In reply to the Chief Justice, the Solicitor-General jsaid some of the paragraphs consisted of extracts, from newspapers. Mr Skerrett said there was no ground for the suggestion of impropriety or sinister moth c. T The Solicitor-General said all ne meant was that, there could be no proper purpose. Mr Skerrett said that was a different thing altogether.