Second Edition "JUSTICE IS NOT BLIND!"

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 33, 9 October 1913, Page 6

Second Edition "JUSTICE IS NOT BLIND!"

AN UNUSUAL CASE. [Put Pbess Association.! Wellington, October 9. An unusual case came bofore the Full Bench of the Supreme Court today, consisting of the Chief Justice ; (Sir Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, Justices Chapman, Cooper, Denniston and Sim.

The action .was a motion by the At-torney-General for an order that William Blomfield, of. Auckland, and William John Geddis, Napier, proprietors of the New Zealand "Observer," which is issued in Auckland, be committed to prison for contempt of Court for publishing in the "Observer"of 6th September, certain insulting and offensive pictures or cartoons, entitled, respectively, "Experience" and "Justice is not Blind," and referring to the i Honorable Worley Baccett Edwards, Judge of the Supreme Court, land imputing to him partiality and party 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 Attorney-General might be at liberty to issue a writ of judgment against Blomfield and Geddis for contempt. The Solicitor-General, Mr Salmond, appeared in support of the application; Mr Cotter,. with him Mr Fell, represented Blomfield; and Mr Skerrett and Sir John Finqjlay, and with him Mr G. Samuel, appeared on the motion.' ' !

The number of the "Observer" con taining the cartoons

Figured prominently in the Court. "Justice is not Blind" was a full-page picture. It represented a judge of the Court with 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 "petitioner," and on the other was the word'"respondent." In the witness box.-"was-' depicted a 'female (allegedly oh ; whom the judge was broadly-vheaming). Thei other picture was entitled "Experience*" a dandifiedlooking person labelled "Worley, the Knut.' '■ In conversation with a gentleman . styled "Map," the dialogue printed underneath the cartoon was as follows: ~

. The Knut "Now," iodk here, Malcolm, what daiytamtknaw of ;the.gay festive life? Look at me. Why, for eighteen y.eaW, ip has been my duty to deal wrth,isnc.h;cases.••'. It is.not likely that you know # so much of the •eamy side of life as I do." Mac: Eh .Wlu}t ?.,„,„.„, .„.„,..„.*. . The Solicitoi'-General said the proceedings were unusual, but not more unusual than the occasion giving rise to them. „ the Newspai»r-Pre«s-of New Zealand! had endeavoured ,to v, up- i hold the traditions journalism, but it was.:to ? _be "fegrettec! that in this case defendants had sr far forgotten those high traditions; and had fallen so far below them.

In supijojrfi serf the application, afli davits were,,,filedv;These included one by Chief-Detective McMahon, who said the pictures had reference to the conduct of Justice Edwards in the divorce suit wherein .William Henry Patterson sought a divorce from hie wife. The detective said it would be generally understood the pictures referred to his Honor, and to the case in question. The Solicitor-General said that 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 defamatory libel of the Judge in his private capacity; but taken with the larger picture, it threw light on the larger one and identified it. .

Tht Meaning of the Picture was Obvious.

It represented his Honor as a dissolute old man about town, treating with sensual levity, divorce and criminal cases which came before him in his judical capacity. It was not desirable that 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, am the uneven manner in which he held the scales were not only an intolerable insult to a learned Judge, but contempt of Court that could not be passed over. He submitted the present was'a case in which the jurisdfction of the Court could be justifiably invoked.

The Chief Justice remarked during argument, that there appeared to be no doubt about the offence. The question was as to the method of procedure.

The Solicitor-General said there were three classes of jurisdiction: by information, by grand jury, and by summary .process. The latter was limited to contempt of Court. Mr Salmond said he had considered two affidavits tiled by defendants, and he thought he was justified in asking that they be removed from the file, as through parts of them were unobjectionable, ho submitted that a great part of the matter put in was not there for any bona fide purpose, and constituted an abuse of the records. :

In reply to the Chief Justice, the Solicitor-General said the same of the paragraphs which consisted of extracts f '.'mi newspapers.

Mr Skerrett said there was no

grounds for the suggestion of impropriety or of sinister motive.

The Solieitor-ueiural said .all he meant to say was that there could be no proper purpose. Mr Skerrett said that was a different thing altogether.