SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3504, 16 May 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Saturday, May 16. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) Macassey v Belt.. -In re the Directors 0t TT* e a ° o Guardian’ newspaper and Others, —ills Honor delivered the judgment as follows In this case it will have been collected from what fell from me when hearing the motion for a rule nisi, calling on the directors 0t it®. Guardian’ newspaper and the defendant and his solicitor to show cause why they should not answer the affidavits, and why an attachment should not issue against them, that I then saw no reason for the application against the defendant or his solicitor. The rule was asked for against them on a mgre suggestion or inference that the directors of the newspsper, or rather the writer of the article, could have derived their information only from them or one of them. But it is quite possible that the information may have been derived from other sources; and there must be a special charge on which perjury can be assigned, if false, in order to justify a nroceeding which may end in highly penal consequences. Daw v. Daley, Law Reports 7, Eq, 49, was cited as authoritv for including the solicitor in the rule ; but in that case it was sworn that he had - written the letter complained of. which was printed in the Volunteer Service Gazette.’ He was, in fact, the only grievous offender, and there was good ground for concluding that not only did his letters tend to prejudice the opposite party, but that such was his express intention. It was, in fact, a very aggravated case, and he being, in fact, the only real offender, was the only one committed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of the action. There is no such specific charge against the solicitors or the. defendant here, and they cannot be called upon to answer affidavits upon a mere surmise. The only question then is, whether the rule ought to go against the directors of the ‘ Otago Guardian ?’ I agree with the principle so often reiterated by the judges, that it is si contempt to print any observations pendente lite, which have a tendency to prejudice the course of justice. The primary scope of the article is to discuss the inconveniences which, in the opinion of the writer,- might flow from the general wording of the ordea. If the article had stopped there I do not think I should have thought it necessary to interfere. But the article goes much farther, especially in the observations as to the counsel throwing, up their briefs. It is the generaUendency of the language which should dg considered in &11 such c&sgs, and the absence of express intention to influence the course of justice fcan only be set up in mitigation at a subsequent stage. This was done and accepted in all the cases cited, except in the case of the delinquent solicitor. The cases cited, and especially that of Cameron v. the * Daily Times,’ in authorities then and now cited are fully ..considered, afford ample authority for allowing the rule* nisi to go—but for the reasons which I hkve given only against the Directors of the ‘ Otago Guardian.’—Rule nisi accordingly. .