Contempt of Court.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 197, 31 July 1884, Page 2

Contempt of Court.

CHARGE AGAINST DUNEDIN STAR. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. [Per United Press Association.] Dunedin, July 31. In Banco yesterday Judge Williams delivered judgment in the case Campbell v. Kennedy and others, in re Dunedin Evening Star. He said that the summary of the statement published was a correct one, and there was no reason to suppose it was published with any bad intention. If publication was improper, the publisher was not guilty of anything more than carelessness or inadvertance. If a statement is published before the trial of a claim containing grave charges, the natural result of such publication is to create prejudice in the public minds but he thought under the present circumstances, defendant was quite justified in coming into Court for protection, having no other pertinent remedy, no doubt, as in the present case, statements published are libellous unless proved to be true. He has his remedy in an action for libel, but that was not the wrong complained of in the present motion, The respondent’s contention that a statement of claim when filed in Court is a public document in sense, but that it is open to any one to publish it is practically disposed of by the Vice-Chancellor in re Chattenham v. Swansea Railway Co. A statement of claim in an action is filed in Court for the information of the Court and other parties concerned. So far as he knew, there was no law or rule which gave all the world a right to peruse it. There was no objection to any one perusing a statement of claim on payment of a prescribed fee, but if the Registrar had any reason to believe that the perusal was asked for by some person who was an entire stranger to the action, or was for the purpose of publication, it would be his right, if not his duty, to refuse to allow the perusal. Not until after a case was heard did the proceedings become completely public property ; therefore contempt was committed, of which defendantshad a right to complain. To publish the summary at all was, io say the least, rather an unusual proceeding, and the argument at hearing really went so far as to show that the publication was legitimate. He could not refuse movers their costs without deciding that the publication was justifiable. He had not been completely satisfied of the respondents’ bona fidcs, and had not the question been raised for the first time in this colony the case would have called for the infliction of a fine, if not for committal. While agreeing that it was mischievous for the Court to interfere except there was real necessity to secure to litigants fair play, he was satisfied that the publication of such an ex parte statement as this one had a strong , tendency in a small community to prevent i fair play, and therefore should be prohibited. The respondents were ordered to pay ten guineas costs.