CONTEMPT OF COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 287, 28 August 1920, Page 8

CONTEMPT OF COURT

NEWSPAPER PROPRIETOR IN

TROUBLE

SOME STRONGLY-WORDED

ARTICLES

A £10 FINE INFLICTED

, Br Tsloiranli—Presi Aasocintlon. Christchurch, August i! 7. An unusual type of case was heard by Mr. Justice Ilerdman in the Supremo Court to-day, when an application was made oil behalf of the Attorney-General for an ordor to commit to prison Thomas Patrick Williams, proprietor of tho Westport. "Times and Star," for his co«tempfc in publishing matter relating to the action of Thomas Edward Mnunsell, Magistrate, of Westport, in dealing with youths who refused to drill. Alternatively, application wns made that a writ of attachmont should be issued against the respondent.

< Statements Complained Of,

Tho statements complained of wero in a fairly large number of articles, Beginning in July, 1919, and continuing until March 10, 1020. Following are some of the statemonts: "There is nothing more repellent in New Zealand's laws than that of heavily fining a youth for not attending drill. Wo declare emphatically that to put ft tax on tho young chap is heaving yot one nioro heavy burden on the already stooping shoulder of tho parent. It is positively monstrous that a boy should bo mulcted in the sum of twenty shillings simply becauso ho fails to shoulder a rifle the same as the serfs of tho' Kaiser Wilhelm did," "It will be noticed in our report of Court proceedings tint Magistrate Maunsell is again inflicting! fines on Territorials. I? this a Prussian country, that our young lads are to be persecuted by tho, military class? Thank goodness the general election will soon bo held, when it is to bo hoped the electors will kick out the military members and tho Magistrates who have been inflicting the fines from their present fat-salaried positions." "A father naturally expects a father, even if lie is a Stipendiary • Maeistrate, to show somo kindliness to the offspring of others; but in most' cases Stipendiary Magistrates, Judges, and other minions of tho law thinK they are placed in a position to persecute tho people, whoso paid servants they are. We would strongly adviso Mr. Maunsell not to' pay imy attention ■ to these officors' tales of woe ro Territorials, or to administer tlio law in a hidebound manner." "Wo warn Mr. Maunsell that it d 6 generally at t'ho lust hurdle that a man or a liorso breaks its neck, and perhaps this will bo tho case when | tho new Parliament meets with regard to Magistrates who. will not attempt to jump hurdles, but will be jumped out of their present fat billets." : Counsel for Respondent. Mr. F. W. Johnston, who appeared for respondent, explained that liis client did not appear before His Honour in person because ho was in ill-health, and his doctor had told him it would be detrimental to him to travel. Mr. Johnston continued that the respondent had apologised in his journal, and' personally to tho Magistrate, who liad accepted tho apology. Eespondent never intended to reflect on the Magistrate. Counsel asked that a light, penalty bo inflicted. His Honour said that tho application wns not for a fine, but for a writ of attachment, He thought that jf n fme were to be inflicted tho respondent should appear in person. *fr. Joimston: If ho travelled, it would endanger his 'health. "**r. A. T. DoniielTy, who appeared for tho Attorney-General, said it was claimed tjiat tho statement Tmblisied wero contempt of an inferior Court of justice, and were calculated to prejudice and to interfere with the due administration of criminal justice in Westport. _ counsel quoted authority for the proposition that the Supreme Court might deal with tho case by inflictiug a fine.

Mr. Johnston said there was a question as to tho respondent's peisonal responsibility. The man who was acting at the time at. which the articles were published was editor temporarily, ana had since been dismissed. Counsel, however, did not raise any controversy ua iu personal knowledge. The respondent must accept the responsibility.

Published-flpology, Sir. Donnelly said that the respondent, in addition to apologising personally, published the following apology under the heading "Compulsory Military Training": "Upon rending some of onr articles hereon, it would nppenr to our renders thnt a personal attack lind been made upon Mr. Maunsoll, residont Magistrate for tho Buller district; hut such is not our object, and we unreservedly withdraw such statements. Mr. Maunsell administers the law as he finds it, without fear or favour, and if our readers have read in our articles any attack either, on the Magistrate or the Courts here, we wish to correct that impression, and to state that it is our intention to keep on agitating for the repeat of the law which imposes on the Court the duty of inflicting fines upon lads for non-attendance at military drill." The case could be met by a, small fine and tho payment of costs, which would not be heavy. His Honour said that the offence was a serious one. He hoped that the case would be. a warning to the respondent. As the Grown had taken a lenient view of the affair, a fine of .£lO would be inflicted, with costs, to be taxed by the Registrar.