DOMESTIC TRAGEDIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20039, 4 March 1927, Page 12

DOMESTIC TRAGEDIES.

PUBLICATION OF DETAILS. COUNCIL OF WOMEN’S PROTEST (Special to Daily Times.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 3. A motion that the Minister, of Justice should be asked to caution magistrates and newspaper proprietors against making public certain features of court cases in regard to domestic tragedies, particularly those in which mothers in a state of mental unbalance attempt to murder their children was moved by Mrs W. Rridgman (Dunedin) at the Conference of the National Council of Women to-day. ~ ~ , Miss E. Card ale (Christchurch) said that it would hardly do to urge that magistrates should he cautioned. ~ Miss Henderson (Christchurch) said that it was not a question of oautioning paper proprietors. Some of them might observe the caution, but some certainly would not. The subject was brought before a recent meeting of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association. The only course was to legislate to prohibit the publication of those details. The power of suggestion was great and many women in a Hi ghlv nervous condition were affected by details of some ca=es in the newspapers Miss A. Kane (Wellington) said she did not think that there were grounds for many complaints about reports in the newspapers of this Dominion. Compared with the newspapers of other countries they were extremely moderate in their reports. tt had been stated that the new English Divorce Act imnosing the suppression of details had resulted in manv more divorce cases, as the dread of publicity was removed. The newspapers in the Dominion had made a point of publishing lurid details, hut they very few. Dr Buckley-Turkmgton (Auckland) said that details 'sometimes caused a powerful suggestion to certain people Miss Henderson said that nobody was making a charge against the . newspapers. She agreed with everything said about the tone of the newspapers of this Dominion. — (applause)—but it was highly desirable that th" details of some cases should not ho published. The motion was amended to read as follows; . . . “That in the council s opinion legislation should be passed to prohibit rowspaners from publishing details in the cases referred to. ’