CRIPPEN CASE SEQUEL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 13, 31 August 1911, Page 3

CRIPPEN CASE SEQUEL.

Mil ARTHUR NEWTON SUSPEN DEI). JUDGE’S CON .DEM NATION OK METHODS EiVIPLOVED. On Wednesday, July 12th, the Lord Chid' Justice and Justices Darling and Bankes, in King’s Bench Divisional Court, London, delivered their considered jiiqgment in the case of the Statutoi v Committee of the. Law So(it ty against Mr Aitlim Newton, the well-known solicitor. The Law Society had asked the Court to deal with Mr Newton for alleged professional misconduct,;, their allegation being that the respondent having, on November 21st, 1910, in his rapacity as legal adviser to Hawley Harvey Crippen, ,a convict detained in His Majesty’s; Prison at Pcntonville, in abuse of the privileges extended to him, aided and abetted Mr Horatio Bottomley, M.P., the editor of “John Bull,” to disseminate in that paper false information in the form of a letter purporting to emanate from Crippen, although the respondent well knew that no such letter in fact existed, and further wilfully published, or permitted to be published, in “John Bull” and the “Daily Chronicle” and other publications false statements relating to the same matter, well knowing them to be false, whereby the public might be deceived. • i ■

Delivering his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said the Court decided that the respondent ho suspended for 12 months and he ordered to pay the costs. His Lordship Said the important question was whether the finding of the committee that the respondent aided and abetted Horatio Bottomley to publish the letter was the right one. The evidence by respondent was that he was not in any way responsible- for the publication of the supposed confession. They had before them the evidence of a shorthand writer named Wray, who stated that the respondent was present in the office when the supposed letter from Crippcn was dictated, and that a certain part of that letter was dictated by Mr Newton. Ho was satisfied that the evidence of Wray was correct, and that a part of the letter was dictated by the respondent. His Lordship then dealt with the report of the committee about letters which appeared in the “Daily Chronicle” and the “Daily News” referring to the Crippen case, and said he was satisfied that the finding of the committee in that respect was also correct. \

In his judgment the respondent was not entitled to escape punishment on thd Aground that that which he purported to communicate was untrue in fact,' and the decision- which he came tfi’bfas that the respondent should be from practising for twelve hloWths and pay tlwcosts of the proceedings before the Law Society and that Court;

lur ln't l d n r c mVi'ft^ 1 'with 1 the- UocfsithV, 1 r Mr Justice Darling said that, quite independently of tlie conduct of the solid! Wi J in making improper use of the pi’Svildge granted hirfifby the Secretary '(ff “Sttite, it seemed to him that that Ciikh disclosed a very grave state of tlihlfe absolutely • inconsistent with public advantage. ir J’he whole of the circumstances which had come into thd case had satisfied him that Gripped' was not from first to last defended as lie should have been, purely vitli a view of defence and nothing dsb, but he was used very largely for'the purpose of 1 making “copy'’’ for die newspapers, 1 and he had not the '•.lightest doubt that the reason why tewspapers subscribed money was that “copy” should be obtained.

For a solicitor to lend himself to that kind of practice was to his mind i very grave offence, although he vould not say that that alone would >e professional misconduct, but Mr Newton did a great deal more. The *vil of that matter -must be patent :o any one who considered it for a nomont. Even the greatest cr.bnnal was entitled to have his case aken from first to last, with the sole iew to his interests, and not for the ,'sncfit of oilier people—journalists 01 tilers. When that wretched man lad been sentenced to death and had insuccessfully appealed to the Court ■ f Criminal Appeal, and had been takm back to prison without the slightest hope of reprieve, even then lie vas not allowed to pass the remainder >f bis days in pence and penitence. ‘John Bull” contained a letter, and ’.very effort was tiia'dc that Crippen mould get that letter, and the solicitor aided the newspaper proprietor in that. “I will not read the whole letter,” continued his Lordship, “but this appeared in it: ‘Brother, how came you to do it P What demon posessed you ? Relieve your burning brain by confiding all to me.”’ AVhy should ho confide to that confessor ? Simply for the purpose of obtaining for the newspapers that which would reimburse them for the money they bad subscribed—with profit. As Crjpien did not receive, that letter, the ■.opposed reply was a fabricated docnnont made up in the office of ’“John, bill.” The whole circuinstances wen aconsisteut with decent conduct .on he part of those who took pa it in lie proceedings. One happened to bo solicitor. Ho must be punished, he others were not within,the jnris-ic-tion of tiie Court, but to ins mind icy should ho punished also. The mtonce, if it erred at all, erred on he side, of leniency. Mr Justice Bankes concurred. Their lordships decided on the apiication of Air Shearman, for the re.pendent, that the suspension should late from July 25th, in order that Ur Newton may settle up certain probssional matters.