The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 283, 12 November 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12.

It is a common notion that a document filed in a public court is public property, and that the right of inspecting such document on payment of a small fee entitles the inspecting party to publish the information thus gained. This idea is erroneous. A case in point occurred some few months ago, when the proprietor of the Dunedin livening Star was punished for making public information gained in the manner indicated. Touching upon a matter of the kind we find the Melbourne Argus saying:—Judges who could rebuke the Executive by no means came to an end with Gascoigne. In Sir James Martin the sister Colony has an occupant of the bench who, as various events would show, rather like a collision with a Minister. A remarkable correspondence between himself and the Stuart Government has just been published, and it is the more noteworthy inasmuch as it deals with a question of importance to commercial communities. Sydney possesses a “ Trade Protective Institute,” conducted by the Messrs. Bretnall Bros. This firm was in the habit of searching the records of the Supreme Court for the particulars of bills of sale and of writs and summonses issued, and of publishing the information in a circular issued to subscribers. In May last the firm complained to the Minister of Justice that the “right of search had been refused ” by the prothonotary, and the Minister referred the letter to that officer, who passed it on to the Chief Justice—and the war commenced. Sir James Martin'penned the following minute:—“ Return the letter and minute by my direction to the Minister for Justice without report, on the ground that the calling for the information in question is an interference with an officer of the Court in a matter over which the Court alone has jurisdiction.” First the Minister of Justice and then the Premier argued the point with the Chief Justice, admitting the independence of the judges, but claiming that, as the prothonotary is a public officer, receiving public money, dismissed, by the Crown, he is under departmental Control. Ordered to make a report on the one hand, and directed not to do so on the other, the prothonotary was in a delicate position, but he effected a clever escape. In a memo, stating why he could not report, he gave the Minister the facts of the case, and with this that gentleman was satisfied. In one of the latest letters the Minister writes to the Chief Justice : “As 1 have-obtained from Mr. Chapman the information required, there is no further necessity to prolong a correspondence which is so void of official courtesy on the part of your Honor.— I have, &c., J. P. Abbott.” Upon this letter the Chief Justice made the following minute :—“ Let this excessively impertinent letter be returned to Mr. Abbott, first taking a copy of it and of this minute.—J. M., C.J.” And there is more of this sort of repartee. As to the Trade Protective Institute, the objection of the judges was to the “ publishing weekly a list of summonses,” on the ground that “ the issue of a writ is an ex parte proceeding, the propriety of which is to be afterwards determined.” Mention is made of one case in which “ the plaintiff, in proof of defendant's malice, gave evidence to the fact that such defendant had issued a writ against him without any cause, for the sole purpose of getting the notice of the writ inserted in the Association’s circular.” The judges were informed that such publication is permitted elsewhere, but the Chief Justice, after examination, denies that “ any statements of summonses are issued.” A rule of Court was then framed forbidding a search by other than parties to a suit, but it does not appear that the publication of the particulars of bills of sale is interfered with. The judges could have given the rule a wider effect, and the Ministry could have dealt more severely with the judges’ officer, and thus both the Trade Protective Institute and the prothonotary have had a squeak for existence. >