NEWSPAPER COMMENTS ON CASES PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 990, 22 July 1868, Page 3

NEWSPAPER COMMENTS ON CASES PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT.

(From the." Sydney Mail.") "When the case of Guinness v. Joshua was called on "Wednesday, in order that a rule nisi for new trial might be moved for by the Attorney- General, some discussion arose as to the illegality of comments by newspaper writers upon cases which were still sub judice. A case had been tried before the Chief Justice— 1 Nelson v. Joshua — in which a verdict had been found for the defendants. That case was still sub judice, as was also the cause of Guinness v. Joshua, which involved to a great extent the same ques- , tions as respected the defendant's liability ; when a Sydney newspaper published a leading article, commenting, it was said, in very strong terms on the verdict in the first-named case on the evidence which had been adduced in it, on the speeches of Counsel, and on the charge of the Chief Justice. In mentioning this fact on "Wednesday, Sir Alfred Stephen said that the article had been pointed out to him, and he had been asked to read it, which he had done. He thought that comments of this kind on cases which were still pending ought not to be allowed, but he should certainly never take any steps himself to put a stop to these newspaper attacks, as he regarded them with perfect indifference. The AttorneyGeneral said that he had not seen the article in question, and he presumed that the paper in which it had appeared was one which he was not in the habit of reading. But if articles of thia kind appeared the writers of them were certainly liable to be dealt with very summarily. The power so to deal with them was in the hands of the Court. It was a power which had often been exercised ; and when articles were published of a nature calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice, it was one which ought to be exercised again. Sir Alfred Stephen said that the article in question designated his charge, in effect, as that of an advocate, and expressed surprise how the jury, with the evidence before them, and after the able address of Sir William Manning, could have obeyed the instructions embodied m such a charge. The Attorney- General said that publications which contained remarks of this nature, were- undoubtedly, punishable, and ought to entail punishment upon the parties, concerned. The Court should exercise the powers which it possessed to prevent newspaper writers from frustrating the ends of justice by commenting on pending cases. Discussing questions of law, which they did not understand, and endeavouring to influence 1 jurors to give verdicts according to such ' writers' own peculiar view, instead of abiding, as such jurors were constitutionally bound to do, by such directions on matters of law as might be given "by the Court. Mr Justice Faucett remarked that there had, he understood, been a recent case in England where a newspaper writer had been called to account for commenting upon, matters which were still sub judice. Mr Darley said that this had been done in reference to the Tichbourne case, and the writer would have been punished but that he had apologised. The Chief Justice again stated that, so far as he was "personally concerned, he shonld never take any steps to stop or to check the publication of newspaper articles containing attacks upon himself.