The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-09-30 00:00:00

n of their efforts, and it is un

derstood were thee fortified by a summ

trates ref

nz a cv

s, (the magis-

Whitty's

presence. A second summons at the same time was
granted against Mr. Whitty's son, he being charged with
assault in having in the scene just narrated shut the door
in the face of the bailiffs.
We understand that the judge acted upon a line in the
Journal's placard, which he considered to be offensive

" Mr. Ramshay's opinion of the people of Liverpool."
The paragraph itself is as follows : In a case before
the judge of the County Court, yesterday, in which W.
Hokum, a shoemaker, of Edge-hill, claimed 19s for goods
supplied to Robert Fey, the latter having a set-off against
the plaintiff for board and lodging supplied to the plain-
tiff's son, a boy, his honour expressed himself in rather
strong language with respect to the characteristics of
some people in this part of the country. The plaintiff's
wife had observed that the boy was in a very weak state of
health, awl on one occasion when at Hokum's she pro-
posed to take him home with her to Rainhill, where he
would be attended to and have the benefit of pure air.
From some cause the boy was brought back to his parents
at the expiration of a month, and the set-off was a demana
of ss. a-week for board and lodging, as previously agreed
on. His Honour characterized the conduct of the plain-
siff as unfortunately like that. of many persons in this part
of the country, and which to him (the judge) was a per-
fect problem ; they appeared not to have the slightest re-
gard for the solemnity of an oath, and were equally desti-
tute of the feelings of humanity. The defendant, with
the most praiseworthy motive, had made a proposition to
the boy's parents, which they, no doubt, jumped at with
avidity. The ss. 6-week charged by the defendant for
the bay's board and lodging was a very moderate charge,
yet the plaintiff attempted to deny the agreement, and had
told a positive falsehood with respect to the time the boy

was at Rainhill. He believed that nearly all that hail
been stated by the plaintiff was false, and he, therefore
bad great pleasure in giving a verdic
PROCEEDINGS YESTERDA'

.t for the defendant."

Yesterday morninw, at the sitting of the County Court,
the case against Mr.'Whitty, the proprietor and editor of
the Liverpool Journal, for an alleged contempt of court,
was called on, when Sir George Stephen appeared on be-
half of that gentleman ; but the learned Judge decided

upon having the defendant present in person

In about half-an-hour Mr. Whitty made his appear-
ance, and the charge was immediately proceeded with.
The first witness called by the learned Judge was Mr.
Sumner, one of the examiners of the court, who, on baling
sworn, deposed that on Saturday morning last, about ten
o'clock, a person was posting bills in the neighbourhood
of the court, some of them within ten or a dozen yards,
and others thirty or forty yards from the court. Those
placards were announcing the publication of the Journal,
and contained a line in large letters, " Mr. Ramshay's
opinion of the people of Liverpool." It was impossible
for the judge, in coming to the court, to avoid seeing
those placards, and witness did not consider them fair re-
porting at all : they were placed so as to cstch his honour's
eye in his way into court. Upon the arrival of the judge
he received orders to pull down the placard, which he
accordingly did. It was now produced in court. The
practice was common for newspapers to post bilis in the
neighbourhood of the court: the Chronicle bills had
twice referred to Mr. Ramshay, but the Journal several
times.

Sir George Stephen inquired of his Honour what pre-
vious acts had to do with the specific offence charged
against Mr. Whitt)? ?
The Judge said, that the evidence went to show that it
was a practice to insult the Judge, and bring the adminis-
tration of justice in that court into contempt among the
people of Liverpool, and, therefore, it must be considered
in the amount of whatever punishment he might feel it
his duty to inflict.

Sir George Stephen, with submission, protested against
his client being made responsible for former placards.
The Judge said, he was not going to punish Mr. Whitty
because former placards were posted; but it was necessary
that a judge should be respected, and he could not be re-
spected if he were to be held up to a system of annoyance
like that which had been practised by the defendant and
others. The act of Parliament had placed stringent powers
in the hands of the Judges of County Courts.
The examination of the witness was then proceeded
with, and it was elicited that from 100 to 200 placards were
posted in various parts of the town ; the witness had
known many insults to the court in consequence of those
placards, and even while he was taking down the bill in
question, a man, who was present, called the judge a low
scoundrel. . .

The Judge : You see, Sir George, the poison has
operated pretty rapidly, To the witness : Did you take
that person into custody ?
Witness : No, your honour; I had no orders.
In cross-examination by Sir George Stephen, it trans-
pired that the occurrence took place outside the court,
upon which fact, the learned counsel contended the judge
had no jurisdiction, in so far, at least, as Mr. Whitty was
concerned.

The Judge said, the Act of Parliament was explicit on
the point; he was protected, not merely in the court., but
in going or coming ; and the effect of that placard was to
discompose his mind for the admitistration of justice on
that morning.
Sir George Stephen contended that the legislature could
not have contemplated any provision for protecting the
mind of the judge ; if the line in the placard were taken
by itself, he submitted that no possible insult could:be ex-
torted from it. What did it, say ! Me:ely, " Mr. Ram-
shay's opinion of the people of Liverpool." And if it
were to be taken in connexion with the paragraph in the
paper itself, it was not attempted to be denied that the pa-
ragraph was a fair and impartial report of what had really
taken place in the court, and that the words used by his
honour were accurately quoted.
The Judge said, that, whether the paragraph were an
encomium or against him, he did not know, for he had not
read the paper. He took the placard as it stood, upon its
own merits, and it was riot to be endured that those who
were charged with the administration of justice, especially
among the poor and ignorant, who were easily misled by
announcements of this kind, should be subjected to annoy-
ances that might have the effect, not only of unfitting them
for the due execution of their duties, but of taking from
them that degree of respect which was indispensable for
the proper exercise of their duties, and probably of exciting
some of the numerous parties against whom he had to
decide, to make an attack upon his life. The life of a
County Court Judge was of some value to his friends,

assailed him ; rind it was likely that if there was no check
put to a system of annoyance of this kind, the melancholy
end of a more exalted man than himself might possibly be
his. The learned judge then proceeded at considerable
length to animadvert. on the evils to which the community
would be subject if judges were not protected, stated that
he had uniformly done all in his power to administer
justice impartially, and he cared not who the man was that
interfered with any officer of the court in the discharge of
his duty, he would have him brought before him and
heavily fined. _

Sir George Stephen respectfully submitted, as a mem-
ber of the bar, junior, certainly, in point of position to his
honour, but not in experience, that the public and the
law looked upon the judge's honour and character as pub-
lic property. He referred to the instance where the
Examiner canvassed the conduct of Mr. Baron Platt, in
the case of some sentences which were placed in juxta-
position, and Me Times had most freely commented on
the conduct of Mr, Justice Talfourd in the case of the
Birds, but it was not for a moment thought that in either
of these cases an insult to the judges, or a contempt of
court had been intended ; and the freedom of the press
must not be lightly invaded ; the press had a right to
comment on the judicial acts of the judge; and had the
placard any epithet or adjective whatever ; had it been
good, bad, or indifferent, or decided, he said, his client
might, perhaps, fell under the animadversion of the
learned judge. But the defendant had only fairly and

honestly recorded an event in his honour's court, and the
placard did not even express an opinion thereon. He
therefore submitted that, as the Crown, with all its pre-
rogatives, the House of Lords, with all its judicial powers,
and the House of Commons, with all its_ privileges, were
. . . .

the net

justly amenable to the fair criticism of the press,
of Mr. Whitty was not within the jurisdiction of the lav
and should his honour be of a different opinion, he wool
advise his client, rather than pay any fine, to go to prison
for the term which his honour might award.
The learned Judge here recalled theofficer of the court,
Mr. Sumner, who, in answer to some questions from his
Honour, said he knew of many cases where insults to the
judee and the officers of the court had been given, chiefly,
he believed, in consequence of these placards. That very
morning a person in court had insulted the officers before
the judge took his seat.
The Judge : Is that person in court ?
Witness : He is, your Honour. (He then pointed out
one of the reporters for the Journal*

Judge:
Witness

What were the words used ?
• : He asked me to give him a chair; and a

bad been pointed ou

to me as one of the report