COURSE OF JUSTICE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11663, 30 October 1923, Page 5

COURSE OF JUSTICE

ALLEGED CONTEMPT

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A WITNESS.

MATTER BEFORE FULL COURT.

An echo of the Nash case for judicial separation came before the Tull Court yesterday, with reference to an application arising out of the fqrmer proceedings, at which, it is alleged, Harry Clarence Cobb, one of two witnesses on behalf of Mrs Xa. the respondent, approached one of the jurymen and had some conversation ivitfi him.

The charge was one of alleged contempt of court by this witness, and the question of jurisdiction was raised, the defence contending that it was a matter removed from this court by reason of the Crimes Act. After hearing argument, however, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), with whom werq associated Mr Justice Hosking, Mr Justice Salmqnd, and Mr Justice Reed, announced that the court was of opinion that it did possess the required jurisdiction to punish for an offence of this kind. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday, when the matter will he concluded.

Mr D. R. Hoggard appeared for William Henry Nash, the petitioner in the former proceedings, and Mr P. J. O’Regan for the defendant, Cobb.

When Die matter was mentioned, the Chief Justice observed that be presumed Mr Hoggard intended to. argue that the court had power to punish in a case of that kind.

Mr Hoggard: Yes, sir. ‘‘Well, as you have raised this point of jurisdiction,” said His Honour to Mr Q’Regun. “I think you had better address us first.”

Mr 6’Regan first submitted that the court had lio jurisdiction tq deal with the matter, and, secondly, that if the court did have jurisdiction, it woqk) be a wrong principle to try a man for a criminal offence on affidavit evidence only. ’The Cfijef Justice, when dissenting from the alternative submission, remarked that there had been previous cases, always on affidavit. Counsel went on to say that- the charge had been flatly denied by Cobb, and his evidence was corroborated by his father and mother. He submitted that thp Onmqs Act had removed autfiofity from this court for punishment in a cate such as the present ono (, c _ fore Tlnjir Honours. Mr J ueticc R»ed: It is not a c«6e of scandalising the court! . . . This is interfering wiH» the course of justice.

Air O’Rfgau concurred. Mr Justice Hosking said it was quite a different case to that of the Attor-ney-General versus Rlomfield :\nd Geddi,-, to which reference had been made by counsel. ‘‘Xll this case,” be added, “the court was actually sitting when the offence complained of took place!" The Chief Justice remarked that both in Melbourne and Sydney people who had committed perjury had been punished for contempt. Air Hoggard’s submission was that jurisdiction' did exist, and he quoted authorities in support of his contention.

Air Justice Hosking said it wap a question of wbat pqwer had beep left to the court by the Legislature. jMr O'Regan held that the contention advanced by Air Hoggard was incorrect. It waa quite wrong to say, he declared, that contempt' of court was purely a matter of procedure. This did not Apply to all classes. His final siibin'iiwion w'af* rhat as the court had no jurisdiction, the matter had to be ■dealt with ’ under the Crimes Act.

“We think thjs is a case ryliere jurisdiction to -punish by this -court does exist,” declared fijir Robert Stout, after conferring with his colleagues. “It is not necessary to say anything more regarding the matter fit the present time. We will hear the ease on its merits on Thursday.”

“I hope you will be ready to go on then,” said Air Justice Hosking to counsel, “and we can have the matter finished with.’’