CRITICISING A JUDGE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 4656, 9 October 1913, Page 5

CRITICISING A JUDGE.

JOURNALISTS IN TROUBLE. SENSATIONAL APPLICATION. TO COMMIT THEM TO PRISON. Electric Telegraph—Press Associates Wellington, This Day. An unusual case came before the full bench of the Supreme Court today, consisting of the Chief Justice,

Sir Joshua Williams and Justices Chapman, Cooper, Denniston and Sim. The action was a motion by the At-torney-General for an order that William Bloiufield, of Auckland, and William John Geddes, of Napier, proprietors of the New Zealand Observer, issued in Auckland, be committed to prison for contempt of court for publishing in the Observer of September 6 certain insulting and offensive pict u res or cartoons, entitled respectively “Experience” and “ Justioe is not Blind,” and referring to the Hon Morley Barrett Edwards, Justice of the Court, and imputing to him partiality, bias, corruption and impropriety in the conduct, of his judicial office, and calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. As an alternative it was sought that the Attor-ney-General might be at liberty to issue a writ of judgment against Blomfield and Geddes for contempt. The Solicitor-General (Dr Salmond) appeared in support of the application. Mr T. Cotter, K.C., and with him Mr Fell, represented Mr Blomfield, and Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Sir John Findlay, K.C., and with him Air G. Samuel, opposed the motion. A number of copies of the Observe" containing the cartoons figured prominently in the Court. “Justioe is not Blind” was a full page picture. It represented a judge of the court wth his eyes partially blindfolded, holding in one hand the scales of justice. One of the scales (considerably higher in the air than the opposite one) had printed across it the word "petitions,” and on the other was the word “respondent.” In the witness box was depicted a female allegedly the respondent, on whom the judge was broadly beaming. The other picture entitled “experience” represented a dignified looking person labelled “Worley the Knut” in conversation with a gentleman styled “Mac.” 'The dialogue printed underneath the cartoon was as follows: The lvnut- “Now look here Malcolm, what do you know of the gay and festive life? Look at me; Why, for eighteen years it has been my duty to deal with such cases. It is not likely that you know so much, of the seamy side of life as I do. Mac- “Eh! what!” The Solicitor-General said the proceedings were unusual, but not more unusual than the occasion giving rise to them. The newspaper press of New Zealand had endeavoured with success to uphold the tradition of the best English journalism, but it was to be regretted that in this case the defendants had so far forgotten those high traditions and fallen so far below them. In support of the application affidavits were filed. These included one by Chief-Detective McMahon , who said the pictures had reference to the conduct of Mr Justice Edwards in the divorce suit wherein William Henry Patterson sought a divorce from his wife. The detective said it would be generally understood that the picture referred to His Honour and to the case in question. The case is proceeding. The Solicitor-General said one of the pictures, taken by itself, independent of the large picture, might well be said not to amount to contempt of court but rather as a defamatory libel of the judge in his private capacity, but taken with the larger picture it threw a light on the large one and identified it. The meaning of the picture was obvious. It represented His Honour as a dissolute old man about town treating with sensual levity divorce and criminal cases which came before him ill his judicial capacity. It was not desi ratio fhat he should discuss the full significance of the abominable picture. The lascivious leer, the sensual smile of the judge who looked at the woman in the witness box, an I even the manner in which he held the scales were not only an intolerable insult to a learned judge but contempt of court that could not he passed over. He submitted that the present case was a case in which the jurisdiction of the court could be justifiably invoked.