CLAIM FOR £6000

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11855, 14 June 1924, Page 4

CLAIM FOR £6OOO

SUPREME COURT CASE CONTEMPT OF COURT ALLEGED AGAINST NEWSPAPER. “SCRUPULOUS CARE NEEDED” Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, June 13. The hearing of two eases involving claims for nearly £UOOO in respect of damages caused by grass fires iu the Mendip Hills district, was resumed at the Supreme Court before Air Justice Adams to-day. Before proceeding with his crosfcexnmination of one of the plaintiffs, Alister Malcolm Maofarlane, Air AI. J. Gresson. counsel for the defendant, Norman Rutherford, said he desired to draw His Honour's and the jury’s attention to a report of the case which had appeared in last night’s “Sun.” One of the big headlines, he said, stated that “Alanv acres of pasture land had been devastated.” “WHOLE ISSUE OF CASE.” “The whole issue,” said Air Gresson, “was whether the land had been devastated or not. It is plainly contempt of court, and I am considering whether or not I shall have the editor brought before the court. From the point of view of defendant Hie publication of this report is all in favour of plaintiffs, and what makes the position worse is that Air Aeland, one of the counsel for plaintiffs in thi6 action, is chairman of directors of this particular paper. It is all the worse on the part of the editor when one considers who is counsel for plaintiffs. I may say it is not the first time this particular paper has offended. Although I did not see them myself, I am given to understand that on the news hoard, hanging in the streets, the lines were there in the largest type,.” STATEMENT BY' THE BENCH.

His Honour said the matter which counsel had brought before him had no doubt been read by some of the jurors. In the absence of counsel representing the “Sun” lie would not 6ay anything further than that prima facie there was, to a large extent, justification for what counsel had said. It would not be proper for him to express any definite view as the matter might be further considered. He desired to put it very clearly that there should be no publication or report of anything which contained conclusions arrived at from partly proved facts. The evidence which had been given so far waa the evidence upon which plaintiffs, relied, and it was obviously impossible to come to any conclusion on the facts until tho evidence of the defendant had been heard. Any indication of opinion as to the cause, or effect, of evidence was improper and ought not to he made. The jury were hound to keep their minds free from any bia3 until they had heard the whole story of both sides. This was o fextra importance. The publication had no doubt inevitably come into the hands of the jury. Scrupulous care should be taken that there should lie no bias on one side or the other. He considered it necessarv to say so much because thero should not he any premature publication of a conclusion before a case was finished. He was quite sure the jury would appreciate and understand what he had said, and any impression they might have gained would be recieted.