A CURIOUS CASE.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 63, 23 February 1877, Page 3

A CURIOUS CASE.

A case raising a question of much importance to newspapers, was argued the other day before the Common Pleas Division. 'J he plantiff, a retired shipowner at Venice, sued the defendants, the corporation of Lloyd's for an alleged libel containing a report published by them of the trial of a certain Italian clerk named Guerra. The report complained of, contained " a short abstract of Guerra's indictment, the opening speech of the prosecution, a short abstract of defence, and the summing up of the judge, which latter charged the plaintiff in strong terms with fraud." Upon the publication of this report the plaintiff brought his action ; and the defence set up was that the contents of the pamphlet were true in fact, and further, that they were privileged in law. Lord Coleridge, however, directed the jury that the privilege enjoyed by the public press did not extend to a corporation like Lloyd's ; and further, that even if this were otherwise, the privilege was forfeited in this case by reason of the fact that, as the report" did not set out the evidence at the trial it could not be regarded as a substantially fair account of what passed in Court." The plaintiffs accordingly obtained judgement ! but a rule was granted to enter a verdict for the defendants, on the ground of misdirection, or for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After an argument, in which it was contended against the motion, and for some time apparently with the assent of Lord Coleridge, that a report loses its privelege unless it sets out the whole of the evidence, a new trial was granted ; and the press has certainly reason to congratulate itself that Lord Coleridge's ruling lias not taken its place as established law. The proposition that as matter of law, a report must be unabridged in order to be privileged is in direct contradiction to the rulings of Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Byles quoted in the case, and would have most serious results to newspapers if put into practice. Indeed, it might lead to the extinction of reporting altogether, except as regarded cases of public interest or importance. At the new trial we suppose the question whether the report in the present case was a fair one will be left to the jury.