Criminal appeal concerning whether a trial judge erred after a witness refused to answer a defence question and was not immediately cited for contempt.
The appellate court had ordered a new trial after finding error in the handling of the refusal.
The court held the trial judge acted within discretion in proceeding with the main trial and deferring any potential contempt issue.
In any event, any assumed error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under the curative proviso.
The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.
