“MAKE IT PRIVATE ROOM”

Taranaki Daily News, 11 October 1929, Page 11

“MAKE IT PRIVATE ROOM”

UNUSUAL REQUEST TO COURT EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC. HUSBAND AND WIFE DISAGREE. "I ask that the court should be declared a private room for the hearing of this case,” said counsel in the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The magistrate: As the public-part of the court is empty, I take it you want an order prohibiting the Press from publishing anything? Counsel: Y’es. I ask you to constitute this court a private room. I take it' representatives of the Press have no right to be in a private room. The application, which w as refused, was made by Mr. R. J. Brokenshire under section 23, sub-section 1, of the Married Women’s Property Act. This says in part: In any question between husband and wife as to the title or possession of property, either party, or any bank, corporation, company, public body or society . . , may apply to the court . . . and the court may make such order as it thinks fit . . . and may, if either party so require, hear sueh application in a private room. The case was one in which Roy Keith McGiven sued his wife, Dorothy Ellen McGiven, for the recovery of £lOO deposited in her name with the New Plymouth Finance Company and of 150 shares in the New Plymouth Brewery and Cordials Company, Ltd., together with interest and dividends. The wife had not complied with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. • Mr. Brokenshire pointed out that his object was to exclude not only the public but the Press as well. McGiven lived in New Plymouth and would be affected by publicity. His wife was away from the town and would not' be so affected. This was merely a question between husband and wife concerning the ownership of money and shares and nothing would be gained by publicity. GROUND FOR APPLICATION. Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M.: The only ground for the application is the question of publicity? Mr. Brokenshire: I claim it as a right for the husband. The magistrate: From what is on the file it seems to me 'there lias already been a good deal of publicity. Mr. Brokenshire: There has been, but this is an entirely private matter between them. Referring to the sub-section under discussion counsel contended that' the word “may” did not give the court discretionary power, for in that case the phrase “if either party so require” would be of no effect. It simply meant that if one of the parties required it the hearing should be held in a private room, enabling a departure from the ordinary rule of a public hearing in open court. Mr. Tate said it might be very undesirable to grant a private hearing of any matter affecting public interest. The eaid he wae not certain that he could exclude the Press, even if the court were made a private room. In the Children’s Court the exclusion of the Press was statutory and publication of the proceedings was not possible without the express permission of the presiding justice. Mr. Brokenshire: If your Worship is not inclined to grant the application my instructions are to ask for an adjournment to consider what course of action to take.

“My impression is that the application is ridiculous,” said Mr. A. A. Bennett (for Mrs. McGiven) when asksd to state hie views. He considered it stupid to say that the word “may” in the subsection did not grant the court discretion in the matter. If it meant anything it meant “may” and not “shall.” It appeared to him that this husband was a little ashamed of what he was doing in suing his wife for money he had put into her name and now he was asking to have it returned to him at a private sitting of the court. “There is no need to go further,” -aid the magistrate. His impression of the matter was that the power of excluding the Press should be used very discreetly, The Press in New Plymouth was very discreet and he did not anything would be gained by suppression or publication, except so far as the feelings of McGiven were concerned.

“Plaintiff will proceed with the case,” said Mr. R. J. Brokenshire after consulting with his client.