DAY BY DAY.

Waikato Times, Volume 97, Issue 15999, 30 May 1924, Page 6

DAY BY DAY.

Some time ago we commented upon the proneness of

Misdemeanants and Suppression.

some Magistrates and Justices of the Peace to order the suppression of the

names of persons convicted or charged with more or less serious- misdemeanours. In doing so we stated that the publicity was the greatest of deterrents, and as punishment for crime was primarily imposed for deterrent purposes, the orders issued by the Courts were neither politic nor justified. Several Magistrates have, of late, voiced similar opinions' from the Bench, and have intimated that only in very exceptional cases will they order the suppression of names. The latest of these is Mr E. D. Mosley, of Christchurch, who was asked to make an order forbidding the publication of the name of a young man charged with being drunk and using obscene language. Counsel stated that such publication would mean the accused would lose his position, which was a good, steady one. Mr Mosley, in refusing the application, said: "Accused should have thought of his position before he took drink. It was only right that employers should know the character of the men they employed. Why should the Court safeguard this man? It was the public which the Court had to safeguard. When a man started drinking he knew there was every chance of his becoming drunk, and he should stop before he became fullv intoxicated. It was- unfortunate for accused if he lost his position, but he had only himself to blame." There will be few who will disagree with Ills Worship's conclusions.