The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-05-27
The Calcutta Contcmut Case.

Hindoo editor has recently been sem
fenced to two months Imprisonment in the
Presidency Jail at Calcutta for having pub
lished few remarks concerning Mr. Justice
NORRIS OF the High Court OF Bengal, In
which that Judge was severely criticised for
having caused IndOo idol to be brought
to court for inspection. 1t seems that in
suit pending in the High Court dispute
arose concerning the identity of what is
called a Saigram. The idol thus named is
stone image of the Thakoor, or household god.
Upon the suggestion of counsel on both sides,
and IN assurance by the Hindoo attorneys
for both parties that there could be no OBJ
lection to such IL course Mr.. Justice NORRIS
directed that the family idol should be
brought into the corridor outside the court
room for examination. Accordingly 1t was
brought there, and inspected by tho parties,
their counsel and the Judge.
In commenting upon these facts, the
BrdhmO Public Opinion, q native newspaper,
declared that the presiding deity Of Hindoo
household had never before been dragged
into court, and went on to say:
"our Calcutta DANIEL looked ut tho idol and said 1t
could not be 100 old SO Mr. Justice NORRIS 10 not
only versed In Law and medicine but is also connois
senr OF iIindoo idols 1t is dicu say what he not
Whether the orthodox Indoos OF Calcutta will am.y
submit to their family idols being dragged into Is
matter for them to decide; but it does that
public steps should be taken put quieus oil the
wild eccentricies OF this young and dispenser Of
justice"
This article was copied by another native
journal named the Bengdtee Of which SU-
RENDRo NATH BANNERJEE is the editor. Mr..
BANNERJEE printed at the same time an et1-
toria! article in which, among other things,
he observed:
Judges Of the High Court have hitherto com,
nanded the universal respect of the community
or course they have often erred, and often
grevously failed in the performance of their duties
Bu, their errors have hardly been due to i'm.
pulsiNeness or 80 the neglect OF the c0mmonest
considerations Of prudence or decency. We have now
however, among us Judge who IL he does actually
recall to mind the days OF JErrRErs and scR0GGs has
certainly done enough within the short time that he has
filled the High Court bench 10 show how he
his high Office md how he IL by nature untitled to main
tain the traditions Of dignity inseparable from the
OF Judge OF the highest court in the land From time
to time we have advorted to the proceedings OF Mr.
Justice NoRRs hut the climax has been reached
and We venture to call attention to the facts reported In
the columns of u contemporary"
In another part Of the article, the BenOalee
spoke Of Mr.. Justice NORRIS rs Judge who
had set ut defiance the religious feelings of
the people, and who had committed what
amounted to an act OF sacrilege in the esti-
nation Of pious Hindoos.
The High Court speedily called upon Mr..
BANNERJEE to show causs'why he should not
be punished for contempt in making these
publications. Judge NORRIS declared that
they conveyed an utterly false impression as
to what he really had done in regard to the
idol. All his proceedings were approved
by the parties to the suit and their
attorneys and counsel. Mr.. BANNsRJEE did
not attempt to maintain tho accuracy Of the
published statements. but declared that hc
had copied them from the newspaper in
which they first appeared, in good faith, and
acting. rs he believed, In the interest of the
public Ho also expressed regret that he
had cast imputations upon tho Judge which
were not deserved. There was practically
no defence, for his counsel refused to argue
tho point that the Court had no Jurisdiction
TO call an editor to account under such cir