Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

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
344

Liberty of Comment. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16147, 27 February 1918, Page 6

Liberty of Comment. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16147, 27 February 1918, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert