Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Contempt of Court - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Shaw v Shaw [1861] EngR 1072; (1861) 2 Sw & Tr 517; (1861) 164 ER 1097
17 Dec 1861


Contempt of Court

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter of The Petition Of Edward Hutchinson Pollard v The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of Hong Kong [1868] EngR 12; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 111; (1868) 16 ER 457; (1868) LR 2 PC 106
16 Jun 1868
PC

Commonwealth, Contempt of Court
A contempt of Court being a criminal offence, no person can be punished for such unless the specific offence charged against him be distinctly stated, and an opportunity given him of answering.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Kitcat v Sharp; 1882 - (1882) 48 LT 64; (1882) 52 LJ CH 134; [1882] 31 WR 227
 
Regina v Macrae Times, 19 November 1892
19 Nov 1892


Contempt of Court

1 Citers


 
In re Martindale [1894] 3 Ch 193
1894

North J
Contempt of Court
Miss Martindale was made a ward of court on 11 April 1894. Knowing that she was a ward of court a young poet and novelist named Ford Madox Hueffer – later known as Ford Madox Ford – married her in May 1894. On 1 June 1894 North J granted an injunction restraining Hueffer from holding communication with her, it not being known then that he had married her. The case came back before North J on 6 June 1894. Reports of the proceedings on that day, heard in private, appeared in a number of newspapers which were then proceeded against for contempt. North J said that: "The paragraph . . was intended to appear to be and would be understood as a concise statement of what took place in my private room . . But . . there was no contempt in announcing the fact that the ward had become the wife of Hueffer; the contempt was in purporting to give the public information, though meagre, of what the Judge had decided ought not to be disclosed, by determining to hear the case in private and excluding the public." The contempt lay in publishing an account of the proceedings of the court, not in publishing the fact of the marriage.
1 Citers



 
 Fairclough and Sons v The Manchester Ship Canal Co; 1897 - (1897) 41 SJ 225; [1897] WN 7
 
Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545
1897
CA
Lindley LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
The plaintiff had obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his tenant, from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the plaintiff and other tenants living in the vicinity of the demised premises. The plaintiff successfully moved to commit for contempt one Murray who had assisted in the holding of a boxing match on the premises, and who now appealed. Held: The order was upheld. Murray's liability was the aiding and abetting of the breach of the injunction. Lindley LJ suggested that there might be a wider principle in play: "A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for contempt of Court, not because he is bound by the injunction by being a party to the cause, but because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference is very marked. In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt."
1 Citers


 
Greenwood v The Leather Shod Wheel Co Limited [1898] 14 TLR 241
1898


Contempt of Court
At common law, material which would deter a witness from coming forward to give evidence is capable of constituting contempt of court.
1 Citers


 
McLeod v St Aubyn [1899] AC 549; [1899] UKPC 51
1899
PC
Lord Morris
Contempt of Court, Commonwealth
St. Vincent: The defendant was accused of publishing a statement by handing over an unread copy of a newspaper for return the following day. Held: There was no sufficient degree of awareness or intention to impose legal responsibility for that "publication".
Lord Morris said: "A printer and publisher intends to publish, and so intending cannot plead as a justification that he did not know the contents. The appellant in this case never intended to publish."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.