ORDER REFUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 11 September 1925, Page 4

ORDER REFUSED

.1 rix:!•: alders i>i s.M’i’Kox i:s. ; I AUCKLAND. Sept. j Tile opinion that the power of suppression names in Court eases was too fivpiiently indulged in in Auekliind was exju'essed' by Mr Justice Alpers in the .Supreme Court yesterday, when he was asked to prohibit, the pulilii tit ion of the nan"..- ol two women. the pi, -iintiU' and this deieltdant in a disjuile over tile inamigement of a buurdiiig-hnuso. Mr fowle. cjumel for toe plaintill. sit*, tie-led at the e..mlie-in :-|ii"lll of ihe ease that his Honour might older tile suppression i.i lolli names to prevetil injury in the business. . Mr Singer, for the defendant, submitted that there was no matter ol public interest in the ease, and held that publicity would mean ruination for the parties, whose entire savings hail hoot i invested in the boardinghouse. His Honour: Any lawsuit involving commercial interests is open to the suggestion that a business may he <ln:n-

aged. I do not see how a lodginghouse can he placed on other than a 1: us j lie-- footing. I am very jealous of j the a I eilulc right of ihc Un-ss to re-j purl with discretion. I have been 100 many years at .journalism ni.vseli not to value the rights of the prolessn-u. In litis case I do not doubt Dial the Press will exercise disiiction, bill I do not think I have reason In prohibit the publication ol the names of the pari ies. Referring in the pradiee in Auckland Courts, bis 11 oik>iu* said: "There is not mini her town in New Zealand in which applications are so frequently made l- •hamstring’ ike newspapers. . As the papers are of the highest standing it makes the matter more difficult to understand."

Mr Singer sind that the Evidente Act entitled I lie Court to older llu- 'Oppression ol any portion of the evidence.

11 is lloiionr s.ii.l that he einisidei ed the Act aimed raliici at the suppression of certain evidence when tliiwas deemed necessary in the inti-rc-I' of moralit \ . Mr Singer said lluii in criminal eases in w hich women were concerned lbe Legislal lire gave power lo oriler the .suppression of llu- woman's name, but not I hat of the man in I lie ease. Hi- Honour: I will say that in this ease it is in the interests ol both putties that the name of the boardinghouse should not be published. I will not go farther than that. I understand there is a practice in this city to take Pm full an advantage of the power ol suppression. Personally. I do not approve of it. and 1 will consider the eiri unistiinces very carefully before I will suppress names.