CONTEMPT OF COURT

NZ Truth, Issue 915, 9 June 1923, Page 5

CONTEMPT OF COURT

PITFALLS fOßjniE UNWARY Typical Instances Frtm The Past A NOTABLE NEW ZEALAND CASE (By "Wilfrido.")

'■ It was In England before the end of the twelfth century that "contempts of Court" became a recognised expression and was applied to the defaults and wrongful : acts of suitors; but as time went, dri it acquired a wider meaning, and now the term comprises both criminal contempts which consist of words or acts obstructing or tending to obstruct the administration of justice or of contempts of procedure which consist of some disobedience to the judgments or orders of the Court and involve a technical Injury. The first class riiay be divided again into contempts which ore committed m the face of the Court and contempts committed by speeches or writings that misrepresent the proceedings of the- Court or prejudice the public for or against the parties appearing either as litigants or as prisoners. The distinction is that one is criminal— en offence against the State and the punishment is m the interest of public justice and not In that of some Individual, while the other is the failure to obey some order or pro* cess of the Court— for example, to bring somebody or something before the Court under a writ, and the punishment is for the protection of private rights. '. ' (-■' There are many kinds of a partibular form of contempt. In the thirteenth century, making a disturbance when a verdict was being given, holding strikes near Westminster Hall, hindering the sheriff, interfering with a process server,, hitting a juror or a justice, or the plaintiff, corning to the Court or, m the vicinity of it, were all considered contempts. To try to INTIMIDATE A WITNESS has always been regarded as punishable. At one trial a prisoner who had been acquitted foolishly shouted to a man who had given evidence against . him, "I'll give you one for splitting on me," but if the stoushing was ever carried out it was not until a year. afterwards, for the. noisy one was, on account of his contempt of Court, kept rent free by the Government for that period. •. In Johnson's case, also, where a solicitor who had attended the hear- . ing of an application before a Judge m Chambers immediately following it, while the parties . were on their way out of the building, uaed grossly insulting language, and threatening ges-! tures to the solicitor who had opposed the application, it wda held that this disgraceful conduct occurring where it did' was as. much an Insult to the administration of justice as if it had happened inside the Court, and the offender was sent to prison to purge himself of the "perilous stuff." A similar fate bef el a party who pleaded , infancy as a- - defence -to a contract; when he was m fact 63 years old. This instance of cool nerve happened m the time of Lord Justice Coke, who had the reputation .6f standing no; Black. And it has always been a contempt for a ward of Court to marry •without the permission of the Court. In one instance a barrister who. brought about the marriage of a wd,rd.of Court uorth £30,000 to an Islington watchmaker named Science , was first imprisoned and then debarred from practising. In another case the ward him-, self felt the heavy hand of the law. Jixxt seventeen years pf age; this bright lnd was -so contumacious' that at last his despairing mother handed him over to the Court '.. > J . TO^UARP; ,ANi>, .CHERISH. ,, '• c An army tutor was appointed for him, but he threw up his charge owing to the ward's disobedience and habits of ; straying home on the wrong sldo of the midnight hour. So the Court appointed another tutor, gave the ward a lecture and told him to continue his snudl-ea, but, unfortunately, 'his only books were, women's looks,' and very boon the youthful renega<se had clan-; destinely married a young girl without either, the sanction of. the Court or the knowledge of his friends or relations. On, hearing of the escapade • the Judge had him arrested m his flat and all the parties to tho marriage~ the bride, bride'a .father; clergyman and witnesses— brought before him, ond on looking into the matter separated him and the flapjJer wife by a atone wall; for imprisonment, he. jiointeiV out, was the solo sanction available at) the ward had no present means, and if this were hot resorted tv the Court might, hay? been defied with Impunity. Another form of criminal contempt Ss the, printing or speaking jjf views on the proceedings of the Court, especially when those are pending. It is undoubtedly the commonest of preBont day forms of. contempt and the most understandable m a country v. 1 here there are ;few restrictions on the freedom of speech exercised by the press and the. public. Journalists pomotimes forget. in their praiseworthy, endeavors to serve, up ; NEWS HOT AND CRISP that once a trial is commenced they must not comment on it or on the I-urties to it, although , after it ha 3 been completed they may say what they like t provided this In within the bounds of fairness "and reason. An example In point is the fine that was Imposed on the proprietor of the Melbourne "Age" for publishing concern- ' ing one A. B. Worthington, while he was standing his trial, that he wns unquestionably guilty of the crime for which he had been arrentod and that Btatements whiqh he might have made m his defence were discredited as having been proved to be fictitious. In a Bikotch that was given of his past life he was taxed with forcerles, swindles, repeated bigamy and wife desertion of the classiest description, And at the finish of the article the nccuscd was summed up as an unnltlgnted rascal from the soles of. hi a foot to the crow.n of his head. !n j Dublin, again, Mr. James Tuohy. whose name suggests a peace-loving Irishpuin, was mulcted m a hundred of the brightest and best for publishing m a newspaper called the "Freeman's Journal" a commentary on the conduct of Captain O'Sbea, who was petitioner m a suit for dissolution of marriage opnlnst his wife and Parnoll. For pome reason he disliked parting with the coin, and appealed, but even Mr. A-squith. who appeared for him, was not able to persuade the Court that ho had the right of appeal, so James had io pay up and add another wrong to those done to his "dark Rosaleen." One of tho most striking examples of this form of contempt arose out or the celebrated .CRIPPEN MURDER CASE. A jkarfant had been issuod commanding the arrest, on a charge of wilful xnlrder, of Crippen, who, however, had fleA the country and become a fugitive oflfonder. The warrant was sent out m charge of a police officer who caught "rlppon m Quebec, and tho latter was l>rought before a Judge In that city that proper proceedings might be taken * Tor his being sent to London, whero ho was to be tried. In its issue of August 6. 1910, the "Daily Chronicle" published a statement of a sensational discovery made of a deadly polaon that had been purchased beforo Mrs. Crippen's death and that tho polioo •wore Investigating the affair, and another statement that Crippen ha-i confo«8«(> m Canada to killing his wife hut that he flenlod the act was murder. When an affidavit was read to the Court which set out that the basis for the second statement wns a note from the Canadian correspondent to the effect that "In view of the mark-

ed good Bumor of Inspector Dew to-, day there is a : persistent rumor that Crippen has confessed," one of; the' Judges, Mr. Justice Plckford (no relation, by the way, to Mary) te'marked, "Could , you imagine MORE RUMOR or gossip than that?" Here the contempt was looked upon as a very gravo one, and the assistant editor who was responsible lor the publication was j fined £200 and costs. From the point ; of view of Or. Crippen, who had not confessed and had., apparently no, in? tention of confessing, the contempt was very grave indeed.. . ..'.■:■■ The purpose of the law as to contempt is not to protect the private dignity of judicial officers, and the publication must be m reference-to the Judge m his judicial capacity- so as to Interfere with the administration of JitßticV An attack upon his character «t)urt, from his official conduct cannot be the aubjeot of contempt, proceedings, nor for that matter would- a libel perpetrated after the conclusion , of the case. The, process of cqoimltt- j ing for contempt is a summary one to be used only from a' sense. of duty and i under the pressure of public riedesafty"; and, as the jurisdiction is pradUcally arbitrary and unlimited; th^re befog ] m most instances no appeal and ' no trial by jury, it has been jealously ! watched and only exercised by judge* j WHEN THE CONTEMPT IS GROSS. General criticisms on the. behavior of n." jvifirrp not calculated to interfere j

(M.P. for Gisborne.s "Two hot sheeps, marry-^-and wherefore not ships?"— " Love's Labor Lost."

with tho course of justice, even though these are scandalous, do not constitute contempt of Court; nor, although it i» an offence to send private communications to a Judge upon the subject of any matter which he has to determine, it Is presumably not one to write him after the case is over. Thus," on one occasion, a defeated litigant who had been warned by the Judge not to be • have • ■ LIKE A MONKEY. m the box, telegraphed to the j\idge every morning for some time after the trial, "Why aid you call me a mdnkey? Reply paid." But by way of reply he received a summons to sbow cause why he should not do time for his insolence, but the Court told tho Judge that he would have to put up with i little things 'like that. The publishers of the TEvphlng News," a Sydney daily, were not so fortunate. They were fined £250 for an article m which it was stated that Temporary Judge Windeyer had delivered a! bitter and one-sided advocate's speech^ which would greatly have influence^ the jury if they had not decided the c^fie on its merits. In , this connection the. St. Aubyn's incident is interesting. . This happened m the Island of St. Vincent, where a barrister at law named McLeod was committed to prison for 14 flays by Acting Chief Justice St. Aubyn. A letter entitled "Pair Play" had been published m a Grenada weekly pointing out that St. Aubyn's ignorance of the law, unscrupulousness and theatrical conduct were reducing justice m St. Vincent to a farce. McLeod was agent for the weekly and, without reading it, handed the copy unopened to the public librarian. On its being found that he had innocently handed on matter that wag libellous ho apologised to the Judge for so acting, but the apology was not accepted by St. Aubyn. The House of Lords when the appeal came before it unanimously decided m favor of the appellant and the Judge was ordered to pay substantial costs. In New Zealand Mr. Justice Edwards was the subject of another case that involved th© filing by the Attorney-General of a motion for the committal of William John Geddls and William Blomfleld for publishing m the Auckland "Observer" two cartoons entitled , "Justice Is Not Blind" and "Experience," which were «nl6 to hold his Hon6r up to UNMERITED CALUMNY AND ABUSE, ?u co ; vu i ao they tend ed to show that h) the divorce suit of Patterson v. Patter- ?°, n , a " d Kronfield ho had sided with ♦5° lady ; When the cartoons appeared the trial was over and the, petitioner gnashing his teeth because judgment had boen given for the respondent and co-ro. The Court thought the pictures were very rude but that they were nevertheless not reflection* on the Judgo m hIH official position, ho the offenders were dlsmisaed with a caution and Mount LMen sighed m vain The most serious, of course of all forms of contempt consists of actn done against or words spoken or primed concerning a Jud X c j n n j s O ftlcl'il status. Tho KuidinK principle In such instances io that an attack of this nature will, "If not checked, undermine the law-abiding character of the people or.d destroy, In many minds, that RESPECT FOR THR BENCH that la essential to the proper administration of Justice. Readers of tho daily papers will have noticed the report of a recent case whero Mr. Justice Romer sentenced a man named Ravonhlll for throwing stones at him The term waa an Indefinite one, for there ia no settled practice at the nmmont m the common law courts m England for the fixing of any fiet nei »orl of Imprisonment. Lord Selbourne when Lord Chancellor endeavored to have a BUI passed limiting the time to three months, but ho wn.s not successful. Howevor, the prisoner can congratulate himself that ho did not live a few eonturios ago, for then such an Insult was punished by not only confiscating tho lands and good" of tho offender but also by removing

bis right hand or by placing him In the stocks, for terms varying from three months' to twelve. This is "What happened to one James Williamson, .who threw a missile at a Judge on the Bench. He was at once indicted and convicted and bjad his right hand cut off— which was done m open Court arid .the hand was placed over the gate of Chester Castle, where It remained for many years after. I cannot recollect such an affront being made to any of the Judges In this <2ountry-r^-a fact that may *c taken as a compliment both to those .who administer the law arid those who accept such administration. But of the; contempt of Court committed by the written word, a lawyer ho longer resident m New Zealand provides us with an instance ■ • UNPARALLELED IN OUR LEGAL ;■_ ', „-. , ANNALS. The drama m miniature arose out of the case of Steinmann v. De Courte,. which decided that the probability that a Judge may be biased towards any party to an action does not present him, unless he has a direct pecuniary interest, from adjudicating m the matter, and such, a supposition cannot be put m issue or discussed m the Supreme Court or m any other Court. Here an affidavit setting out •the grounds why the case should not be. tried before Edwards J., because, of prejudice on his part was ordered to be removed from the file as scandalous and impertinent, and Mr. X., the solicitor by whom it had been sworn and filed, was ordered to pay the costs of removing it from the Court file, the Court holding that it had not been placed there honestly and m goo 3 faith but for the purpose of . , / INSULT AND ANNOYANCE., Julie Steinmann, a young a visa girl, was engaged by theCount de Cpiirte, French Consul at- Wellington, and-* member of a lineage as ancient as 1 the .average hotel chioken, to wash dishes; make beds and generally be useful about the house. Word* passed between them, with the result- that Julie found herself east out on the stonyhearted streets "without a job or a tfob;" so she sudd the nobility for the balance of her wages and damages .for wrongful dUtniisgal.'.'' Shortly before she derided- to Tmfold her troubles to the Court; it appeared ■ that th« Mite c* Mr., justice/ Ed; wards bad been cued m the Magistrate's Court for wages by two other members of Julie's domestic union, so when Mr, X. found that, his client's cause would be tried before Edwards J. he filed an affidavit annexing to it a copy of the "Guardian,", a Wellington newspaper, containing a report and a comment on the lower Court proceedings. The Chief Justice, Sir James Prendergast, thought that the solicitor was guilty not only of contempt of Court biit of serious PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, and he had no hesitation jn saying so, and m ordering him personally to pay to the Court the sum of £ 10 10s and disbursements. Mr. Justice Dennistori was of the same opinion. 'It cannot he suggested that any intelligent man, ' he remarked, "any practitioner, any gentleman, could for a moment think that the matter introduced into this affidavit could, on any possible honest pretence be held to be legitimate matter. It was certainly not filed m good faith. I believe it was introduced to frighten the Judge, and for that reason the insulting references to his family were put upon the file, quoted without authority from a journal, unverified m any way and reviving an unpleasant incident. That is the only reason that could possibly lead to the outrage m question." These caustic remarks did not go unnoticed, and on Tuesday, May 23, f899, exactly one week after they, had been passed, Mr. X. was brought before the Court on a motion of the Law Society to show cause why he should hot be struck off the rolls or suspend • ed for his offence. In theatrical parlance there was a full house. Mr. X. submitted to the Bench, which consisted of the Chief Justice and Justices Williams, Denniston and Connolly, that the Court, having already inflicted costs on him, would not surely harm him m the way that the society wanted. He felt that he had done no wrong. It was all due to the spite and anlmtis of the Wellington lawyers, who were m a feverish hurry to have him struck off and knew that his wife was ill. Mr. Justice Denniston told him to STOP TALKING RUBBISH, and' Mr. Justice Williams politely requested him to desist from being dramatic with no other reason than getting reported m the papers. Said .Connolly J.: "You are defending yourself by slandering the whole profession." After speaking for several hours he sat down, when there was a sound of applause m the gallery, which "was prdmptly suppressed. On the same day the Chief Justice delivered judgment, the gist of which was that as the contents bf the affidavit had been born of the babble of a barber's shop and as there had been no word of regret or suggestion of apology, the Court felt bound m the interests of the public, as well as litigants and of the profession, to suspend Mr. X. f** three months. Against this pronouncement Mr. X. immediately appealed to the Privy Council, but that tribunal upheld the , four Judges and orderd him to pay costs. Thus was justice done to the flouted dignity of a member of the Bench, but of the exact salutary and corrective effect of the punishment, as In many instances, Judges and clients may be said to be at variance. '