The Globe. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 623, 17 June 1876, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1876.

It is with much satisfaction that we find the Press of the City of Christchurch omitting the names of inebriates who appear before the Magistrates for first offences, as we are disposed to consider that the appearance of the names of the offenders in print upon such occasions as being in a measure a punishment greater than is contemplated by the law. There is another matter in relation to the publication of proceedings in the law courts which we consider deserves the attention of the press, and that is the publication of the civil cases. We do not for one moment pretend that the idea originates with us, as the omission of the reports of these cases has been advocated by abler and more logical writers, but we are willing to lend our aid toward the suppression of reports which we hold to be unjust and uncalled for. We should not object so much to the publication of these cases, were the merits of each given in full; but the fact of Mr Jones being summoned for a pound or two due to Mr Robinson, the grocer or dairyman, as he may be, being made public, is, as far as we can see, of no utility whatever. “Synder,” in one of his articles, says : —“ I have always “ said why should a newspaper damn “ a man’s credit and character because “ he finds himself unable to pay Jones « hie butcher, or Smith his grocer,

“ Jones and Smith need not have “ parted with their goods without ob- “ taining cash down on the counter “ bad they not liked to have done so, “ to say nothing of having stuck on “ prices for the risk they ran when “ giving credit. I have never allowed “ this to be done when I have had “ command of a paper. It not only “ does a man injury, but it gives pain “ to his wife and family and friends ; tf it enables a spiteful woman to say: “ ‘ There goes Robinson; he was sum- “ moned the other day because he “ could not pay his butcher. After “ that his old woman needn’t give “ herself no more hairs, and so on, &c.’ “ No; I don’t allow the thing to be “ done if I know it, and I hope you “ won’t either. Grod knows news- “ paper people, in the fair discharge of “ their duties, have to inflict pain “ enough, without doing it unneees- “ sarily.” And we hold that in these small cases, should even a point of law become involved, that the arguments thereon might be published without the names- 1 of the parties in the case. We have no wish to see suppressed any cases wherein dishonest practices or intentions appear, as those cases being circulated through the medium of the newspapers are of very great service to traders, by giving them timely insight relative to the characters of the offenders. There is one thing in relation to the reports that are published that requires some explanation. We find that civil cases coming before the .Resident Magistrate’s Court where the jurisdiction is to the amount of £IOO are merely reported as Jones y. Smith, £BO ; or Smith v. Jones, £3. How is this P Whilst if a paltry case, involving a monetary dispute of some 50s, in the Supreme Court would be given in full with all its disgusting details. Are the proceedings in the Supreme Court of more consequence to the public than those in the Resident Magistrate’s Court? We cannot see that this can be the case, as a suit in the Resident Magistrate’s Court is by far the most expeditious method by which to obtain a settlement. • We trust that our observations will be the means of attracting the attention of the press to the subject.