“NO LICENSE TO INSULT.”

Hokitika Guardian, 22 February 1929, Page 2

“NO LICENSE TO INSULT.”

C<)UN,SE V S QUEST lONS

COURT’S DUTY TO PROTECT WITNESSES.

CM PITCHURCH, Feb. 21

A lawyer’s right to ask a witness a certain class of questions was denied in tlie Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Adams. Ili.s Honour said that a lawyer could not ask insulting and annoying questions and that it was the Court's duty to protect witnesses. The Court was hearing a defended divorce case before the Judge and a .iir.v. John Wiliam Austin, of Christchurch, labourer, petitioned for divorce from Cecelia Austin, on the grounds of misconduct, and named IJeiijamin Hobbs, of Wellington, as corespondent. Mr Thomas appeared for the husband and Mr Sievwright (Wellington), with him Mr Moloney, for the wife.

Opening the cross-examination of tho husband, Mr Sievwright asked him a question in regard to proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court. His Honour would not allow that question. His Honour said : “You understand the practice of the Court perectlv well. You must confine vourseif to the charge. I won’t allow you to introduce extraneous matter to inflame the mind of the jury or of anybody ■lse.” Mr Sievwright: I am referring to a document that may affect his crediJi 1 ity, His Honour: T don’t follow that. The fact that an orJfer was made by a magistrate does not impeach the credit of anybody. It might affect his reputation otherwise, but not bis truthfulness. “What in the world are you asking questions of that nature for?’’ his Hon. our said later. Mr Sievwright said that lie wished to deal with the wav witnesses were brought into Court. His Honour: I won’t allow you to waste the time of the Court in that way. You must confine yourself to proper questions. You are trying to spring on the petitioner matters without notice, which you know quite well you should not try to spring on him. Mr Sievwright: May I put the question in this way ? His Honour: No. you may not put it in any way. The husband, in reply to Mr Sievwright, said that he had not made charges against his wife of misconduct with men in addition to the co-respon-dent. Mr Sievwright: You make overtures to Hobbs to give admission of misconduct with your wife?—No. Did you promise somebody that if 'Hobbs, gave that admission you would pay a sum of money I ?—Certainly not. Mr Sievwright: What sum did you pay a man ? Mr Thomas: A grossly improper question, your Honor. His Honor: Mr Sievwright, you must not put questions of that nature. You haven’t a license to insult or annoy. You will understand that. Your duty uni your right is to ask questions relevant to matters in dispute, and to avoid questions which insult and annoy, and vhich should not be put. This is one •1. them. Mr Sievwright: My instructions are

His Honour: I don’t care what your instructions are. This is not a case in which you can pour out all the slander and suggestion you can think of in the hope ot producing prejudice. .Ur Sievwright: I don’t want to produce prejudice. His Honour: Very well, confine your questions to what you know quite well are the limit of legitimate crossexamination. There is no difficulty in doing that, Mr Sievwright. Later still, his Honour said : That is a question that is absolutely improper. You can’t ask him to say that he has perjured himself in any way. His Honour: You must not put it to him in any way at all. It is tho Court’s duty to protect witnesses against conduct such as you are indulging in. Mr Thomas protested against another question by Mr Sievwright. Mr Sievwright: I’m not concerned with that. His Honour: What do you mean, you are not concerned with that? Mr Sievwright: I mean it does not concern the case at all. His Honour: Does not concern the ease at all, yet you bring it up? When H is Honour spoke to Mr Sievwright about the need for another question, Mr Sievwright said that lie diil not wish to ask leading questions, “as his learned friend had interrupted him so often.’’ Mr Thomas: Not without cause. ■Respondent, in reply to Mr Thomas, said that her husband, believing that slio was misconducting herself with Hobbs, broke into the house amt threatened to take their lives. The police had to he called in. Hobbs left her house in August, 19*26. At one stage when .Mr Sievwright was examining Itcne Hamilton, daughter of respondent, Mr Thomas said that a certain question was typical of Air Sicvwriglit’s cross-examination. Air Thomas complained that the witness’s statement did not agree with that of respondent, and that counsel was Irving to put the witness on a pedestal again. His Honor: The jury will have to find that one side or the other is, to speak plainly, committing perjury, and it is important that no witness should he given a loophole to cover up any false evidence. I am explaining the rule, and I am doing it been list* you. Air Sievwright. persistently break it. At a later stage of the evidence Mr Thomas said that he did not know how

often lie must protest against counsel’s method of examination. He had given the witness a chance to change tier evidence.

Air Sicvwright: J must protest against Air Thomas’s insinuation. His Honor: Kit down, Air Sicvwright. Let the witness proceed. The evidence having been concluded. Air Sicvwright addressed the L'ourt. He urged upon the jury that the evidence for the petition was a •‘frame-up.” It was apparent that petitioner wished to escape maintenance for his wife, and cited Hobbs as a corespondent in the beliel that Hobbs would not bother about the ease in the knowledge that he could not be traced.

Addressing the jury. Air Thomas said that lie must criticise very strongly the conduct of the case by Air Sicvwright. In the speaker’s long experience he had never before had occasion to state that counsel’s action was most reprehensible. 'I he highest amount that could be granted as security against costs in the Court was £lO. and Air Sicvwright bad asKed for a guarantee of £7d. The address of Air Hobbs could have been obtained, and yet Air Sicvwright implied t,..a Hobbs could not be traced. Air Thomas also took exception to Air Sievwright's remark that petitioner had brought the proceedings to escape payment of certain moneys to respondent. ■ n his experience he had not known of a counsel “with such a nerve” as to make such a statement. Air Kiev, wright should have brought Hobbs and another witness to Court, as they could have established respondent’s innocence, if such were the case. Air Sicvwright was amply secured against costs, which included the bringing of witnesses from the North Island. After an adjournment of about lialf-nn-hour ,the jury returned with a vercnet that Airs Austin was guilty oT adultery with eo-rospondent. and vice versa. A decree nisi was granted to petitioner. to he made absolute in three months. An order was made for petitioner s costs to he paid by co-respondent.