The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-18
Contempt Of Court by an English
Editor.

A very useful and interesting case OF
contempt of court brought against the
editor. but not against the newspaper.
has just been decided in the court OF
Queens Bench. in London. The act Of
the editor took place at Birmingham.
where trial was about to begin.
which In the opinion OF the presiding
Judge. so far as the evidence was con-
cerned, was unfit for pub
]ication. Acting in the light
OF his experience the judge
took occasion to cali the attention. of
the newspaper reporters present to the
danger. and cautioned them against 1t.
This act on the part OF the judge led
one OF the city editors to print an ar
ticle which for rank scurrility exceeds
anything ever seen in an American
newspaper. II was moreover gross
libel upon the Judge, as gross indeed, as
that printed by our illustri-
GUS morning contemporary against
Air. Justice Rogers charg-
ing him with granting secret divor-
ces" Had the charge been for his per-
forming Fleet marriages" 1t would not
have been worse. Mr.. Justice Rogers
wrote a letter. but the English judge
sent the article TO the attorney general
and an action was brought in the
Queens Bench, Lord Chief Justice Rus
sell, and Mr.. Justice Grantham, and
Mr.. Justice Phillimore. sitting. Before
the opening OF the case, the editor or
the offending paper submitted TO the
court an affidavit in which he recanted
everything which he had before printed,
and in terms so abject that a healthy
man would be made sick by reading
them. Here are some of them. followed
by the Judgment OF the court. How
ard Alexander Gray was the sounding
name OF this ass OF an editor. He said:
81 wrote the paper and in doing so I
used language referring to Mr.. Justice
Darling in terms which were intemper-
ate, improper, ungentlemanIy, and void
OF the respect due TO his lordshlps per-
son and office. The expressions applied
TO Mr.. Justice Daring were not deliber-
ately Intended TO bring discredit upon
his lordship. but were the outcome of
my strong feelings. ! know they cam
not be justified. and do not seek 10
justify them. 1 am entirely response
BILE for the article and for everything
which 1t contains. / deeply regret the
publication of the article and the mex
cusable and insulting language In
which II referred TO one OF her majes-
tvs judges and humbly apologize TO
his lordship and to the court for my
conduct which ] now, upon consldera-
tion. see reelected not only upon the
individual judge. but upon the bench
OF judges and the administration of
Justice. and 7 submit myself TO the
merciful consideration OF the court
Lord Chief Justice Russell gave the
judgment OF the court: In giving II he
used this language: cor the character
OF the article there can be no question.
mo one has described II In stronger
Language Of condemnation than How
ard Alexander Gray in the afidavit Ia
which I shall presently call attention. n,
II not too much 70 say that IL is an arr
ticie OF scurriIous abuse OF a Judge IN
his character OF Judge. scurrilous
abuse in reference to his conduct while
sitting under the Queens commission
and scurrilous abuse published in the
town In which he was still sitting In
discharge OF the Queens commission
1t cannot be doubted. indeed. II has not
been argued. 10 the contrary by ehe
1earned counsel who represents How
afd Alexander .-ay. that II does con-
stifute a contempt Of court but. as
these applications are, happly.of an un-
usual character. we have thought Il
right to explain little more fully than
A. perhaps necessary what does consti-
tute contempt of court. and what are
the means which r-r law has placed
at the disposal Of the judIcature OF
checking and punishIne contempt II
n1|nrf> Any ec dong. or writing pub