MR WARDELL ON REPORTING.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 691, 29 May 1885, Page 22

MR WARDELL ON REPORTING.

At the close of the criminal business at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning, Mr Wardell, R.M., addressing the. representatives of the Press, said :—I wanted to -make to the representatives .of the Press an observation on a matter to which my attention has been directed. A great number of persons appear to pick up or gather a knowledge of what is supposed to be legal or justifiable conduct from newspaper reports ; and it becomes very necessary, therefore, that reports should not be so given as to lead persons to form wrong conclusions from the decisions of the Bench. I have noticed a paragraph in this morning’s paper (which, I suppose it may bepresumed, was written by a person of intelligence), in respect to the assault case Neal v. Hume, in which the writer seems to havearrived at a wrong conclusion, for he says : “It would seem that our worthy Resident Magistrate is of another mind, for in the assault case, Annie Neal v. Hume, it was admitted that the latter did lay hands on the ■ woman and put her out of his shop, and this the Magistrate pronounced ‘ an indiscretion,’ but not an assault. It is a pity that he sodecided . .. . .for now the entire question has been, upset by a. dangerous precedent.” Then it goes on to sayt “Mr Wardell has nnwittingiy handed his name down to posterity ; he, or rather his decision, will be quoted everywhere in support of' pushing, or the laying on of hands, being no assault. There will be do end of trouble about it.” Now this (continued his Worship)is what I wanted to call your attention to, reporters : that the writer gathers from the report which appeared in that paper that I had held that pushing a woman out of a shop was no assault. Now, if you rememDer, in that case there was great conflict of evidence.. The defendant and his son both swore that the plaintiff, Mrs Neal, after causing some disturbance in the shop, and being requested toleave, threw the bacon in the defendant’s face. Thereupon the shopkeeper again requested hezto leave the shop. There was no violence used. If the facts were as they were sworn to —if the woman did throw bacon in the defendant’s face —then the mere putting of his hands upon herwas justifiable. I only want to ask you to be careful in reporting, so that people who read “Asmodeus ” may not be led to do what constitutes an assault.