Saturday, May 16. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Chapman.] MACASSEY V, BELL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 357, 20 May 1874, Page 3

Saturday, May 16. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Chapman.] MACASSEY V, BELL.

In re the Directors of the Otago Guardian newspaper and others.

His Honor delivered judgment herein as follows : — In this case it will have been collected from what fell from me when hearing the motion for a rule nisi, calling on the Directors of the Guardian newspaper and the defendant and his solicitor to show cause why they should not answer the affidavits, and why an attachment should not issue against them, that I then saw no reason for the application against the defendant or Ins solicitor. The rule was asked for against them on a mere suggestion or inference that the Directors of the newspaper, or rather the writer of the article, could have derived their information only from them or one of them. But it is quite possible that the information may have been derived from other sources, and there must be a specific charge on which perjury can be assigned if, false, in order to justify a proceeding which may end in highly penal consequences. Daw v. Eley, L. Rep. 7 Eg., 49, was cited as authority for including' the solicitor in the rule ; but in that case it was sworn that he had written the letter complained of, which was printed in the Volunteer Service Gazette. He was, in fact, the only grievous offender, and there wa« good ground for concluding that not only did his letter tend to prejudice the opposite party, but that such was his express intention. It was in fact a very aggravated case, and he, being in fact the only real offender, was the only one committed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of the action. There is no such specific charge against the solicitor or

called upon even to answer the affidavits upon a mere surmise. The only question tlien is, whether the rule ought to go against the Directors of the Otago G-u.vrdian. 1 agree with the principles so often re-ifcerated by the Judges that it is a contempt to print any observation pendents lite which have a tendency to prejudice the course of justice. The primary scope of the article is to discuss the inconveniences which in the opinion of the writer might flow from the general wording of the order. If the article had stopped there, I do not think 1 should have thought it necessary to interrere. But the article goes much farther, especially in the observations as to the counsel throwing up their briefs. It is the general tendency of the language which should do considered in all such cases, aud the absence of express intention to influence the course of justice can only be set up in mitigation at a subsequent stage. This was done and accepted in all the cases cited, except in the case of the delinquent solicitor. The cases cited, and especially that of Cameron v. the Daily Times, in which the authorities then and now cited are fully considered, afford ample authority for allowing tho rule nisi to go, but, for the reas >ns which I have given, only againbt tho Directors of the Otago Q-tJAKDiAN. Eule nisi accordingly.