Liberty of Comment.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning which led the jury in tho libel action Beath and Co., Ltd. v. Goldsborough to return a contemptuous verdict for the plaintiff company. ' Tho evidence showed that llid defendant asked tho company's representative for an advertisement, and that upon this being refused, he threatened to give tho firm a showing-up. It was subsequent to this that tho article complained of appeared, and cn the company's representative meeting tho defendant and remarking, "Well, tho promised blow has " fallon," the defendant replied, "Yes." The article forming the subject of the action implied that there was a German element in the firm, and it was couched in most offensive tonus. No evidence was given in support of the allegations or insinuations in tho article, and the jury by their verdict showed that in their opinion the statements made were not true. In these circumstances we certainly cannot understand why only oontemptuous damages wero awarded. In times like these, to accuso falsely any firm of being under German influence in any shape or form is about as serious a form of libel as can be perpetrated. We believe, as every honest journalist believes, in tho freedom of tho Press. In a time like tho present it is especially essential that its freedom to comment upon public men and public companies should bo jealously preserved. But as the learned judge pointed out in his summing-up, thero must be a fair foundation of fact for tho comment. In this case tho plaintiff denied the .allegations made by the defendant, tho 1 .ittor did not go into the box or call any witnesses, and the jury by their verdict, as we have said, virtually accepted the plaintiff's denial. Moreover, the appaarance oc the article? after the refusal, of the advertisementconstitutes a sinister element in the case. It will be a bad day for this country if juries over got into tho habit of confusing the liberty of the Press to comment on matters of public importance with libsrty to levy blackmail.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19180227.2.27
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16147, 27 February 1918, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
344Liberty of Comment. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16147, 27 February 1918, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in