Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/244

 London Legal Letter.

2i9

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Aprils 1896. PRACTICALLY as well as theoretically a very earnest endeavor is made to preserve the dignity and decorum of the English Courts. Not only is arTy attempt to com ment upon a matter which is under trial sternly repressed, but even a statement as to the contents of a document in a suit which has been tiled, but which has not yet come up for hearing, is so far considered to pertain to a matter sub judUe as to bring it within the rule of contempt of court. Last month an evening newspaper published as a news item a condensed statement of the contents of a peti tion, or statement of claim, in an action brought in the Queen's Bench. It was represented to the editor and pro prietor of the paper that this statement of claim contained allegations many of which were immaterial and of a most damaging description; whereupon the editor apologized and made an affidavit stating in effect that he was surprised to see the item in his newspaper, that it had been brought to him just as he was about starting on a journey and that he had given it to the sub-editor with an instruction to be very careful about it. It was not suggested that there was anything ill the newspaper item that was not. in the petition; nevertheless a motion was made for a writ of attachment to issue for contempt of court for printing and publishing "cer tain statements calculated to prejudice the fair trial of the action and the defendant in the eyes of the public." The motion was heard last week. A leader and a junior ap peared for the motion, and a leader and a junior for the newspaper, and two judges considered it. For the motion Mr. Carson, <,). C, urged that " the authorities showed that a publication of an ex parte statement, such as a statement of claim, not supported by any evidence, and before the trial came on, was a contempt of court. If such a thing could be done no one was safe. All that a man had to do was to tile an action against a public man, draw up a statement of claim containing any matters of prejudice he might choose to invent, and then threaten to make public the statement of claim." This of course is all very true, but it is I fear novel doctrine in the United States, where too often a defendant is persuaded to agree quickly with his adversary, not because his adversary's claim is a just one, but because he fears the publication, with head-lines, of the petition before the an swer, which will probably never be published at all, can be tiled. In this particular case the judges argued that " it was shocking that newspapers should publish such matters as this, which had not been before any court of justice, that it was interfering with the course of justice and that it was in excusable"; but as the newspaper proprietor had apologized, no other punishment would be indicted upon him than to adjudge him in the costs of the application — which is equivalent to lining him from S500 to S750, so great are the costs of litigation here. Another movement in the direction of greater gravity and decorum in the conduct of trials here is the bill which has recently been introduced by the Lord Chancellor in the

House of Lords, giving judges the right to exclude the public from trials which for decency's sake ought not to be held in public. The bill has met with some opposition, but it will be passed and will prove a useful measure. It is almost impossible for one who has not witnessed it to conceive of the craze which society women have for the details of sensational trials, and the lengths to which they will go to gain admittance to the courts when any matter of society interest is on the docket. Not only are those parts of the court-room which are ordinarily set apart for the public over.crowded, but counsels' seats are invaded, and in many instances the bench itself is occupied by fashionable women in gay toilets. In a case which was tried not long ago, in which the parties were conspicuous members of the highest social circles, and royalty was called into the wit ness-box, many women were admitted to places specially reserved for them before the doors were opened to the public, and in order that they might not lose these posi tions they brought their luncheons with them and remained throughout the day. In the more recent examinations of Dr. Jameson and his associates at the Bow Street police court, the demand for places by titled ladies has been a serious annoyance to all the numerous counsel engaged, and to the officers of the court. In fact the throng was so great that several of the counsel were unable to get to their seats, but had to take their notes on their knees and be satisfied with such glimpse of their clients and the judge as they could get by peering around the intervening screen of widespreading bonnets. Few actions of recent years have attracted as much at tention, not only on account of the prominence of the parties and the romantic character of some of the incidents, but by reason of the intricate question of law involved, as the case of Kitson v. Playfair, which has just been tried by Sir Henry Hawkins and a jury. The plaintiff is the wife of Mr. Archer Kitson, who is the brother of Sir James Kitson, a wealthy Yorkshire baronet, and the defendants are Dr. Playfair, one of the most eminent and fashionable West-end physicians, and Mrs. Playfair, who is the sister of Sir James Kitson. The plaintiff had not been in her hus band's company for two years when in 1894 she called a Dr. Williams to attend her. He requested that Dr. Play fair be called into consultation with him, to which Mrs. Kitson willingly assented, remarking that Dr. Playfair was her husband's brother-in,law. At a second consultation an examination was made under chloroform, and while recov ering consciousness, Mrs. Kitson heard something said by Dr. Playfair which implied that her illness was the result of misconduct on her part, or, in other words, of a miscarriage, and that the signs indicated a pregnancy of three months. Mrs. Kitson indignantly denied this and appealed to Dr. Playfair to grant her an interview in order that she might tell him what had happened and thus clear her character. Dr. Playfair refused the request, repeated that he had no doubt of his diagnosis, and said that it would be his duty to inform his wife about the incident in order to pre