GRASS FIRE CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19198, 14 June 1924, Page 15

GRASS FIRE CASE.

NEWSPAPER COMMENT’ RESENTED. COMPLAINT BY SOLICITOR. (Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 13. Tho hearing of two eases involving claims for nearly £6OOO in respect of damages caused by grass fires in the Mondip Hills district was resumed in tho Supremo Court before Mr Justice Adams to-day. Before proceeding with his cross-examination of one of the plaintiffs, AlLsler Malcolm Macfarlano, Mr M. J. Gresson, counsel for the defendant, Norman Rutherford, said he desired lo draw his Honor’s and the jury’s attention to a report of tho case which had appeared in last night’s Sun. One of the lug headlines slated that “Many acres of pasture land hud been devastated " "The whole issue,” said Mr Gresson, “is whether or not I shall have the editor brought before the court. From the point of view of the defendant the publication of this report is all in favour of tho plaintiffs, and what makes the position worse is that Mr Acland, one of tlio counsel for plaintiffs in this action, is chairman of directors of this particular paper. If 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 thorn myself, I am given to .understand that on the newsboards hanging in tile streets the lines wore there m the, largest type.” His Honor said the matter which counsel bad brought before him had no doubt been reaj by some of the jurors. In the absence of counsel representing the Sun he would not say anything further than that prima facie there was to a largo extent justification for what counsel had said. It would not bo proper for him to express any definite ’’ w as the matter might be further cousin ..red. Ho 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 was liie evidence upon which plaintiffs relied, and it was obviously impossible to come lo any conclusion on the facts until the evidence of defendant had been heard. Any indication of opinion as to the cause or effect of the evidence was improper, and ought not to be made. The jurors were bound to keep their minds five from any bias till they had heard the whole story of both parties. This was of extra importance. Tho publication had no doubt inevitably come into the hands of the jury. Scrupulous care should be taken that there should be no bias on one side or the other. Ho considered it necessary to say so much because there should not be 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 it might have gained would be resisted.