CONVICTION OF THE TICHBORNE CLAIMANT AND MR. SKIPWORTH FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. (Times, Jan 30.)

Waikato Times, Volume III, Issue 142, 5 April 1873, Page 2

CONVICTION OF THE TICHBORNE CLAIMANT AND MR. SKIPWORTH FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. (Times, Jan 30.)

The last of many strange episodes in the inexhaustible Tichborne case terminated yesterday in the Court of Queen' Bench, which had never, perhaps, been so thronged evens during the most exciting stages of the great ti lal. It will be remembered that on Monday week Mr Whalley and Mr Guildford Onslow were summoned before the Court to account for language used by them at St. Jamss's Hall in promoting the so-called Tichborne Defence Fund, and that, having apologised for this language, they were condemned to pay a fine of £100 eaclu On that very evening another meeting was held at Brighton, under the presidency of Mr Skipworth, a member of the bar, who had also been chairman] at St. James's Hall, and who had just been hearing the judgment pronounced iv the Court of Queen's Bench en Messrs Wiialley and Onslow. Ou the following Wednesday the Lord Chief Justice called the attention of the Attorney-General to the reports of this meeting, at which the claimant himself was present, obs irvmg thab if thos reports were correct, a fresh and stiH grosser contempt o5 Coart had been committed at JJiighton. Aceordinjly, on Saturday laat, Mr Hawkins, at the request of the AttorneyGeneral, moved that Mr Skipworth, who resides near Lincoln, should be lequired to attend the Court and answer for the contemptuous words attributed to him. Mr Justice Blackburn, however, after perusing the report, was of opinion that an order should bo issued, on the authority of the Courfc itself, against the Claimant as well as against Mr Skipworth, and both appeared yesterday in person before all the Judges of the Queen's Bench, except the Lord Chief Justice. After the affidavits in support of the order had be*n read, Mr Skipworth handed in a paper to be read by one of the Masters, whereas the Claimant, declining the assistance of counsel, followed with an effective aclJrc3s on his o\v n bchaK. Upon f uU consideration, the Court found both guilty of a wilful contempt, but thought it right to draw a distinction bewteen them as regarded the degree of criminality and the measure of punishment. Mr Skipworth was thoi ofore sentenced to be imprisoned for three months in Holloway gaol and to pay a line of £jOI)_ This CLxi > Ji.au t was simply i<.«jaired to gi^e security, in a sum of £1,000 on his own recognisances and those of a 6iirety, against the repetition of a similar offence during the next three months ; and, the recognisances having been perfected on the spot, he was forthwith discharged. No one who reflects dispassionately on the circumstances wdl be disposed to regard these sentences as unduly severe. While thero is something, at first s'ght, repugnant to English feeling in the spectacle of a Court enforcing respect for its own dignity by pains and penalties, not a word can be said against the exercise of this power in the present instance. Never was thoro a more outrageous and deliberate contempt of Court, or one moro directly calculated to prejudice the administration of justice than was brought home to Mr Skipworth and the Claimant. In his speech from the chair at Brighton, Mr Skipworth not only denounced the punishment inflicted on MiKsrs Wlmlley and G-uildford Onslow in unmeasured terms, vowing that ho would have cut off his hand or gone to prison rather Uuhi apologise, but defied the Lord Chief Justice to meddle with himself, roundly charged the whole Court of Queen's Bench with partiality, and declared the Lord Chief Justice in particular unfit to pres'dc at the forthcoming trial. The Claimant emphatically reiterated this last statement , and protested that the Lord Chief Justice had prejudged his cause four years ago by speaking of him at a club as a runk impostor. Upon tins and other ground) he announce J his intention to hold tho Lord Chief Justice, in turn, responsible for a conlompt of Court, as well as to petition Parliament against being tried by him. In other words, a prisoner on bail for perjury, aided and abetted by a barrister, indulged at a public meeting in the most insolent abuse of a judge who, in the discharge of his duty, had dared to impose moderate fines on two others of his partisans, and who might possibly hnve to sit in judgmont on himself. Jfo sentimental considerations whatever can outweigh the necessity of checking so unscrupulous an attempt to cnbarrass tho course of justice by popular clamour or intimidation. Had tho case been reversed —had the Lord Chief Jmtico and his brethren dismissed the chin go against Messrs Whalley and Onslow as groundless, and had they been thereupon attacked by parties interested in tho prosecution as they havo been by parties interested in the dofence — every one would havo felt that it was a monstrous interference with a ponding trial, and must be sternly put down. But society has its rights us woll as inclividu tls, and were it possible for tho promoters of this agitation to tmonced in the objects they manifestly have in view, it is not the Crow n, but the nation at large, that would sustain a grievous wrong. At tho same time, the Court probably showed a wiso discretion in dealing moro leniently with the Cliuinuut than Mr Skipworth.

A country paper h.is thib delicate p -rsonal i 1 rm : — "Those who know nice 01.l Mr Wilson, of this pi u-j, pe.-son illy, \\ 'U region tv htat taat ho wa.s> assaulted •. ahr til tnrnucr I week, l.uiiiot k 'i "