A COMPLAINT.

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 268, 31 December 1870, Page 5

A COMPLAINT.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sib, —At the end of the Resident Magistrate’s Court report of last week, in the Marlborough News , I came upon the words—“ Some disturbances occurred in Court, and Mr Lawrence was called to order, but as it continued he was ordered out of Court.” As far as I can gather from the News' report, Lawrence was protesting against insulting language used by Constable O’Sullivan—that he would kick him out of Court like a dog, or like his dog. Well, Sir, if a man is addressed in that manner by one of the officers of the Court, he has a perfect right to resent it, whether in Court or out of it. Contempt of Court implies conduct calculated to

retard the proceedings of the Court; but, if Mr Lawrence’s statement is correct, it was the constable that was retarding the business of the Court by using language calculated to cause a breach of the peace. If a constable does not know the difference between a man and a dog, it is time the magistrates taught him. Now, Mr Lawrence says he has witnesses to prove the words used. Did the magistrate enquire into the cause of the disturbance, to see whether a visitor had been insulted or not ? The reporter of the News is silent; he says it is stated that the words were “ turn you and your dog out of Court,” but I would ask who stated it? There the reporter is again silent. Was it a disinterested hearer of the words really uttered ? The report says, when being put towards the door, he (Mr Lawrence) put on his hat, and was brought back for contempt of Court. I presume putting on his hat before he reached the door is, or may be intended as a contempt of Court. I would not justify Mr Lawrence in doing it, but I would ask how many have done the same and nothing been done towards them; the matter was a puerile thing in itself, and would have been better honored in the breach than in the observance of it. He was asked to apologise, we are told. Now, Sir, I do not blame the Court for asking him to apologise ; but has not greater obstruction been made to the business of the Court, especially when a new barrister came into it ? and was there not much greater contempt of the chair shown, and refusals to sit down, after he had had his argument, and insisted upon talking loudly after being told to be silent, a useless debate used to be prolonged by the hour, because a barrister would not sit down. I ask if this was not a greater obstruction to the business, and a greater contempt of the majesty of the Court, than the simple act of one going out putting his hat on before he reached the door. I have looked at the files of the Express of those days when a special reporter against whom the only accusation made was for being too faithful and true in his reports, but I find he has passed over all those conflicts of the bar with the bench, and I presume it would be impossible now to bring evidence relative to it. What was the matter with that reporter ? Was the extraneous wrangling so lengthy that he was obliged to omit it altogether ? or was it leniency towards a young man starting in business, and not to expose a patient magistrate being brow-beaten ? The report in the Neivs proceeds—“By refusing to apologise he was fined £l.” Now, no doubt, Mr Lawrence ought to have apologised, for that matter, but wiiat about the provocation ? was it enquired into? In the above lines I have been drifting towards a main argument —has anyone been fined before for contempt of Court ? and was it because it was Philip Lawrence ? has different justice to be meted out to a barrister than to Philip Lawrence ? I do not ask whether the Court may be partial, but whether it may not be unknowingly prejudiced ; whether a big man may be allowed to do that which a little one is not. —I am, &c., Impartial. Blenheim, Dec. 23rd, 1870.