CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1986, 6 July 1880, Page 3

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

We find that the paragraph in yesterday’s Globe relating to the Ashburton “ contsmpt of Court case ” does not convey a perfectly correct idea of the matter. We understand that upon the Magistrate ordering Mr Purnell to sit down, the latter declined to do so ; not on the ground that he was a solicitor of the Supreme Court, “ and therefore the Magistrate had no right to order him to sit down,” but that os was properly in possession of the ear of the Court, and his sitting down at that juncture would be prejudicial to his client’s interests, as it conceded the right of his adversary to raise a nonsuit point at a stage of the case when only one of the plaintiff’s witnesses had been hoard. The Magistrate told Mr Purnell that he was an officer of his (the Resident Magistrate’s) Court, and bour.d to obey his orders; to which Mr Purnell responded that ho was not au officer of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, but was an officer of the Supreme Court, and was not obliged to obey illegal orders. Mr Guiness ordered Mr Purnell tositdowntwo or three times, but the latter still refused, at the same time studiously disclaiming any wish to be disrespectful to the Court and excusing his refusal for the reason before stated. Mr Purnell was placed under arrcs% and was being removed from the Court before ho was offered any time for consideration, and it appears that ho tendered no apology, but in compliance with the request of the Mayor of Ashburton and other persona he did return to the Court and repeated what ho had said throughout, namely, that ho had refused to sit down, not out of any disrespect to the Court, but simply in the interests of his client. His Worship said he was glad to have the opportunity of receiving oven that “ qualified apology,” and ordered Mr Purnell to be released forthwith. The whole matter has created a strong sensation in the district, and seems to be one which requires further investigation.