A LITIGANTS OUTBURST.

Wairarapa Age, 29 August 1933, Page 5

A LITIGANTS OUTBURST.

MAGISTRATE OFFERS STERN WARNING. SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT. WELLINGTON, August 28. An outburst at the Magistrate’s Court last week by David James Richards, when Mr. J. 8. Barton, S.M., refused to reduce a maintenance order of £4 a week payable by Richards to his wife, was referred to by Mr. Barton in the Court this morning. ‘ ‘ The proceedings after the judgment was read were interrupted by the complainant rising in his seat and employing filthy and obscene language,” said Mr. Barton. “I gave him a warning, and told him I would be prepared to do what I thought was a kindness to him—to pretend I had not heard it. I suggested that he should leave the Court until he 'had recovered his selfcontrol. He went out of the room, but came back and again discharged some filthy and disgusting language and immediately left the Court . It was impossible to apply an order to hold him for contempt of Court in accordance with the usual procedure, as there were no officers here to arrest 'him, and in any ease he left the room immediately.” Mr. Barton said that he had given the matter considerable thought, and the remedy ho had in view was to submit the matter to the Supreme Court. It had been held that the superior Court in England had an inherent jurisdiction in all cases of contempt either in the superior or lower Court, and would exercise that jurisdiction if for any reason it did! not seem convenient to follow the procedure laid down. It seemed to him, if the matter was to be carried any further, that, for several reasons, that would be the most proper course to take. “I invited the defendant to appear this morning,” continued Mr. Barton, “to show cause why he should not be dealt with further for the contempt of Court and obscene language uttered in the face of the Court after he had been warned.” Richards: “I have had four years of agonising persecution. I have suffered the most frightful injustice.” Richards then went on to refer to previous Court actions in connection with his matrimonial affairs. Mr Barton: ' ‘ You are seeking to justify your words? I take into cqnsideration the fact that you believe that you have suffered a serious injustice. The question is: Do you wish to use that to justify the language you used?” Richards: “You said that my income was more this year than it was last year. ’ ’ Mr. Barton: “Well, don’t go into that.” “Well, sir, that’s what stung me,” replied Richards* : ••I’fflfll'f Mr. Barton: “Have you anything to say to show cause why you should not be proceeded against in the Supreme Court for contempt?” Richards: “I am explaining my state of mind, sir.” Richards went on to refer to his financial position, and then said that he 'had been wrong in using the words. He had lost control of himself when it was stated that his income was larger this year than it was last. q J,., || | Mr. Barton: “Your attitude is that you were justified in using that language? That is the only attitude I can take from what you have said.” Richards: “I cannot help it, sir. Flesh and blood can’t stand it. It seems to me it is an attempt to get me into an asylum.’’’ Mr. Barton: “I understand that yon have already been held in this Cburt tor contempt until the close of the proceedings. I was not aware of that tact last week. You were warned, and you have had more leniency extended to you in this matter than anyone else would have 'been allowed.” Richards: “If I have not suffered enough injustice, you had better put me m gaol—” r The Magistrate told Richards to resume his seat and not say another P 0 ! 11 ’} then ad jo«rned, and Richards left the room quietly.