THE CARTOON CASE

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1880, 14 October 1913, Page 8

THE CARTOON CASE

LAST DAY OF HEARING. MORE DEFENCE &,THE REPLY. THE "COMIC PAPER" PLEA. I ' ; '. AND REMARKS'BY THE BENCH. Hearing ended yesterday, in the' cartoon case. It has occupied the Full Court for 13 hours, as from Thursday last, .and deoision is now reserved. In this case tho Attorney-General proceeded against William John Geddis and William Blomfield, proprietors of tho "New Zealand Observer," calling upon them to show-causo 'why they should not be committed for contempt of Court. Tho ground of the action lay in certain cartoons which were alleged to be a reflection on His Honour Sir. - Justico Edwards in connection with tho ' Paterson.divorco case, which His Honour recently heard at Auckland. Tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert' Stout) presided, and associated with him were: Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justico Chapman, and' Mr. Justice Sim. The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.) conducted the case on.behalf of tho Attorney-General; (tho Hon. A. L. Hordnian), Mr. C. P. Skerrott, lv. C„ with.him Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. G. Samuel, represented defendant Geddis; and Mr. T. Cotter, K.C., with him Mr. F. ,H. Fell, appeared for defendant Blomfield. More Defence—Only a "Comic" Car- .. . toon. Mr. T. Cotter, K.C., resuming his . argument on behalf of tho defendant Blomfield; commenced by stating that in England there had never been a singlo action for contempt of Court in respect to a cartoon or caricature. . Mr. Justico Chapman: What difference can there be between one form of • contempt and another P ■ * Mr. Cotter replied that the same consideration should apply to tho caricature of an individual so far as libel was Concerned as to tho representation of a Judge so far as the invocation of that extraordinary power..was concerned. , Mr.. Justice Chapman: Then in no case. can. the Court treat a caricature as contempt? . Mr. Cotter: Only that your Honours will not look upon a cartoon in a comic paper as so grave an offence as if it had been letterpress in a morning or evening paper.' ; Sir Joshua Williams: Is it a "comic" ' paper? Your observations are privileged. (Laughter.) Mr. Cotter: The defendant for whom I appear is essentially a comic sketcher. The Famous Bahama Lottcr. Proceeding with his argument, Mr. Cotter quoted "Hodger v. Mortimer," which concluded, "Public men must put up with laughing, caricature, and i sneering." Referring to the' Bahama ' case,. which had \been frequently quoted during the present case, Mr. Cotter said he did not know what words the So-licitor-General would have used for tho prosecution in that case, as there were undoubtedly scandalous references ?jade '-. to tho Chief Justice, and yet twelve of the most famous jurists in England unhesitatingly said that it was not con r tempt of Court.' Sir' Joshua Williams: How can you judge a man's intention except by tho effect it has upon the publio mind? Mr.: Cotter : That has been laid down In your Honour's very words. Tlie language of the letter in tho Bahama case, if referred to tho effect upon the public minds, would bring discredit upon tho Chief Justice and the administration ;of'tho law by him, and yet their lordships'of the Privy Council held that it was not, tinder the circumstances, contempt of Court.' " .... If the Letter Had Been a Cartoon? Sir Joshua Williams: There is doubt that the writer .wanted- to tiring tho Chief Justico into contempt. , Mr. Cotter: And yet the most distinguished assemblage held that it was not contempt of Court. Supposo'that a cartoon was mado out of.this letter? Mr. Justice Denniston: How would you do that ? I wish you would. try. Sir Joshua Williams:. Your., client could no doubt help you. Mr. Cotter: Supposirig-the Chief Justico was'represented, as'in'tho letter, refusing, tho wonderful gift. of a dozen pineapples, and underneath that cartoon were the words:- "The insult is not suf- { ficient."' 1 ... Mr. Justico ■ Cooper: Did the lettersuggest that the Chief Justice refused the pineapples because there were not enough of them ? Mr. Cotter:' I think it does. The So-licitor-General, in that case, • would no doubt suggest that tho punishment for that should be boiling in oil or melted lead. Judges Aura Again. . In concluding his arguments Mr. Cotter .expressed tho hope that that Court would not- hold that it was still necessary for tho support of its authority to punish an alleged libel on a, Judge by a paper not'.:!personallj' interested'in the proceedings, and .for the first -time in tho half-century's- history ot that colony ■. .exercise that antiquated, .'if,,.'riot ' :obsolote,' power, and allow' tho colony's., traducer:, to improperly apply the languago of Lord Morris in giving judgment in tho Jl'Loud caso "that New Zealand was still a small colony, consisting of a'coloured population," and that it was thorefore necessary to preserve tho dignity and respect of the Court. Ho did not think that the enforcement of that power was still required in ordor to kcop a blaze of glory round tho Judges. That blaze of glory being moro appropriate to tho soldier than tho statesman —but . more appropriate still to the statesman than the Judge-— must be shorn of its scorching arid blinding rays. It could be appropriately replaced- by a halo of right9ousness and justice produced and reflected by public opinion, warranted by the character, wisdom, integrity, and impartiality of the, Judges, and supported and upheld. by tho strength and force of enlightened public opinion, which, in these days, was the most sure and last- ' iug foundation not only for tho security of, and respcct for, the throne of tho Monarch, but for the Stato and its Judges. . Sollcltor-Cenera! Replies.Tho Solicitor-General,' in reply, remarked that tho various arguments nsed for defendants might be classified Under thrco heads:—(l) That there is no juriedictiou to deal summarily with contempt of Court. (2) That no contempt had been committed, and (3) .that it was not advisabta in the prooent case to exorcise jurisdiction. The first contention was only referred to by one of the three counsel, and then only in a half-hoarted manner. In the Bahama caso no attack had been made upon tho Judgo in his judicial character. There was nothing in tho letter but a personal libel, and that was tho ground of tho decision. Reply to Plea of "Fair Criticism." Mr. Skerrett contended that this cartoon was not contempt because it was criticism, which his clients nad an.absolute rifht'to make—fair or unfair. Ho admitted that there was a right of fair comment on and criticism of Judges, but this cartoon was an insult and a

defamatory statement of fact. Tha distinction was laid down in a case, Hunt v.'"Star" newspaper —the latest case —in which Lord Justice Moulton had said: "Comment muat not convoy imputations of an evil sort except so far as tlio facts truly stated warrant tho imputation." Ho-submitted that the cartoons in the present case were criticism within the authority of the cases' he had quoted. To tell tho truth about a Judge in a proper manner was to do a service to the administration of justice. The plea of fair cojiment, or justification, was open, and, if defendants desired to justify it, they would be afforded an opportunity of doing so. It was possiblo to speak even tho truth in such a manner that it became an attack upon the administration of justicc*.' It was truo that jurisdiction was not to be oxercised except in cases where there was no doubt, and he submitted that.(on the faco of the cartoon) fhero was 110 doubt in this case. Is the Procedure Taksn Right? As to the third argument that the proper course was an indictment for defamatory libel, that argument was based upon the supposition that the exorcise of that jurisdiction was discretionary, but he, submitted that there was 110 such thing us a discretionary jurisdiction. Counsel for (fcddis and Blomfield had submitted tliat the procedure in this case was indictment before a jury, which was more convenient and more adapted to tlie case. The objections to that course wore overwhelming. Nothing more grotesque and nothing more subversive to the proper administration of justice could be imagined. He asked their Honours to consider what the proceeding's would he like: C'ould anything more likely to create a public scandal be suggested? It was contended that a Judge, grossly 'defamed and libelled, had to lay an information before a Justice of tho Peace. Mr. Justice Denniston: Tho Crown can lay it. The Solicitor-General: The Crown cannot lay an information. I have never heard of an Attoraey-Genoral doing it in that capacity. Mr. Justice Cooper: , Tho AttorneyGeneral can always prefer an indictr ment before a jury. _ Sir Joshua Williams: So far as it is a libel on a Judge, the Judge himself would have to lay the information, but so far as it is a libel on justice—and that is what this is—it could be laid by the Attorney-General. The Solicitor-General remarked that he did not know whether tho Judge so libelled would bo heard in his own Court, or whether there would be a change of venue to another district. In conclusion, lie submitted that it would be an ill service to the country if the Court refused to exercise that jurisdiction which at all times had been found necessary to protect them from attacks such as those. Tho Court reserved decision.