SUPREME COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1566, 17 March 1887, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

ALLEGED CONTEMPT 01 COURT. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The motion calling on J. M. Twomey, proprietor of the TbmukA Leadbb and Obbaidihb Gtjabdian, to show cause why a writ of attachment should not be served against him for commenting on the libel case Ivess r. Kerr, came on yesterday. Mr Twomey said he had engaged a barriiter in South Canterbury to engage counsel to represent him at Christchurch, but he had not forwarded the fee, and therefore the counsel did not appear. His Honor said that then he understood Ur Twomey did .not intend to submit. Did he intend to show cause P Mr Twomey was quite willing to admit that he had been so guilty as His Honor had stated, if the Court held it to be so. He had thought that if he commented either on one side or the other he should hare been doing wrong, but there was not one word affecting the merits of the case one way or the other in the whole article. His Honor said he was really surprised how men could take notice of such things. Mr Twomey: Especially newspaper men. His Honor said that newspaper men were usually the most thin-skinned when they were attacked, but he could certainly not see why anyone should feel hurt at such rubbish as this, Still Mr Twomey ought to know i hat comment on a case like this was a contempt of Court. Mr Twomey said after what His Honor had said he saw that he was in error, and would desire to apologise for what he had done. He had erred in ignorance. Hit Honor said that a newspaper proprietor especially was bound to know the law with reference to the question of comment. To say he did not was to ask the Court to believe something that one could hardly do. However, he did not think that the interests of public justice demanded th t he should serve a writ of attachment, nor did he think it was a case in which the course followed in other oases, viz>, the imposition of a fine, was necessary, Of course, whatever was the result of this application, it did not prevent the parties taking an action for libel against him, if they were so advised. As he had said, a person owning a newspaper most be aken to know the law, which was that comment on any case pending before the Supreme Court was a Contempt of Court, If, however, Mr Wilding saw his way clear to forego any application for costs, the Court might come to the conclusion not to issue the attachment, He was himself averse to using the extreme power of the Court, but there were case* in which it wai neoeseary. He would point ont. to Mr Wilding that the Courts in other casts always discouraged cases being brought for costs. _ Mr Wilding fully agreed with His Honor as to the justice of discouraging oases being brought for costs, but he would point out that Mr Twomey had only pleaded hie apology at the last moment, and when Mr Ivess had been put to some considerable expense. Be thought therefore that Mr Ivess was entitled to be held free of expense in the matter, and that Mr Twomey onght to be ordered to pay the costs as between solicitor and client.

His Honor said that bethought this should be so. He was far from taking the apology as a fell and sufficient one, and the plea that a newspaper proprietor did not know the lav especially affecting him, which he

was bound to do, was no plea at all. Under the ciroumitancei he thought that there was no necessity for Mr Twomey to be attached, but he would have to pay the costs between solicitor and client.

Mr Iwomey asked if he would be right in publishing an account of the case heard that day. His Honor said that Mr Twomey could do so, and he hoped that if he did he would publish it in full. Mr Twomey then asked whether he could publish the summons he had received. His Honor said Mr Twomey must consult his adviser on that point.