The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1885.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3430, 25 September 1885, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1885.

It would be easy to moralise on the painful scene which occurred m the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Tuesday during the hearing of what is known as " the Hutt Tarring Case." Fortunately there is no danger of such occurrences becoming at all frequent m our Courts, and perhaps the -wisest as ■well as the most merciful way of dealing with it will be to refrain from drawing any self-evident conclusions from the affair until it becomes clearly necessary to do so m the interests of the public. Nor is it, of course, our intention at present to make any comment on the merits of this extraordinary case, which is exciting such interest throughout the length and breadth of the colony. There is, however, one feature of the proceedings which appears to us fairly open to pemark. We refer to the attempt of counsel for the prosecution to extort from a newspaper editor information communicated to the latter m a confidential capacity. It may be, as was argued, that such communications are not privileged m strict law. However that may be, we think such a 6cene as that which took place when Mr Gillon, tho editor of the Evening Post, was placed m the bos and an unavailing attempt was made to coerce him into a gross breach of confidence, was hardly less creditable than that which took place when two leading members of the bar, close under the nose of the presiding magistrate, interchanged such epithets as " ruffian " and "vagabond," to the delight of the greasy hangers-on at the back of the Court and the pain and sorrow of every respectable person within its precincts. We desire to say nothing as to the merits of the present case, but speaking as a general rule, we should regard it as an admission of great weakness on the part of a lawyer who endeavored to get m this fashion evidence whioh he or his clerks apparently had not sufficient skill and enterprise to work up m the ordinary and legitimate way. Mr Travel's we know to be one of the most skilful and experienced practitioners m New Zealand, and therefore we are the more surprised at his having recourse to such an expedient. Fortunately Mr Gillon was not to be intimidated, and the information was not forthcoming. What we are surprised at is that it should ever have been deemed possible that the evidence could be obtained m this way. What was done by Mr Gillon would, we are sure, havo been done by every other journalist m New Zealand. Mr Travers, of conrße, did not venture to ask for the committal of the witness. Had he done co he would have damaged his own case, and aroused a storm of popular indignation not easily allayed. If communications to editors are not privileged de jure it is evident they are do facto. If an editor found he had himself been misled, or his papop made a tool of by designing persons for their own purposes, he might feel himself justified, and indeed bound to give up the name. That, however, would bo an exceedingly rare occurrence. He would strenuously refuse, whatever might be tho penalty, to give up any information communicated to him m a confidential capacity, where his informant had acted bond fide, and wo do not believe any Court would venture to commit him for such refusal. If it did the only result would be to make a hero of the journnlist, while public opinion would speedily demand and obtain an alteration m tho law bo as to prevent such an outrage being possible ia future.