The Evening Star SATURDAY, JANUARY 24 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3409, 24 January 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JANUARY 24 1874

Again has a Dunedin jury delivered a verdict in an action for libel, calcilated seriously to impair the value of the Press as a social institution. From the peculiar relationship' to the case in which we stand as defendants, we feel some delicacy in commenting upon it, especially as the jury, being a special [ one, is supposed to have comprised some of our ablest Dunedin men. We fear those who live in other parts of the Colony, and in other Colonies, will not be impressed with the wisdom displayed in the decision at which they have arrived. Should the evidence be examined on which they have based it, it will be found not to bear out their conclusion. The plaintiff claimed damages where none were proved. He claimed to have been hampered in the execution of his duty ; the only proof of which he gave the jury was that a lighterman threatened to write to the Evening Star to complain of him ; he expressed fear that he would suffer in the estimation of his superiors; whereas his superior officer said that, so far from that, he regarded him, after the letter, far more highly than before that complained of was published. He was not- dismissed from office, nor fined, nor refused promotion—he suffered neither in character nor pocket; what damage could he claim ? As, therefore, we cannot gather from the evidence that the Deputy Harbor Master was entitled to damages, to what are we to attribute the extraordinary verdict of ten jurymen—for there were, we have heard, two dissentients 1 We should like to place some plea before the world as a shadow of an excuse for them, for we do not like the idea of it being said Dunedin juries always award damages against the Press, right or wrong. Perhaps, therefore, it may have been that the personal experience of many of those jurymen led them to conclude that the Deputy Harbor Master was a very obliging and courteous gentleman. If they decided on their private experience, we congratulate the Deputy Harbor Master on his having so many respectable friends—friends so warm-hearted as to lead them to forget they were only to judge according to the evidence. But, Gentlemen of the Jury, did it strike you that this kindly courteousness on the part of the Deputy Harbor Master was not always shown to others with whom he came in contact 1— that is plain, from his evidence and Captain Thomson’s— and that in all probability the urbanity of demeanour which gained him your respect was a new feature developed after the publication of the letter in question ? That, in fact, it was the rod, the use of which led him to adopt a more courteous bearing; and that you have actually compelled the Evening Star to pay for schooling the Deputy Harbor Master for your benefit 1 The result of your decision, if we are correct in our surmise, may be very properly stated thus,in ordinary newspaper phraseology : On Friday, the Deputy Harbor master was presented in the Supreme Court with a testimonial of fifty pounds by ten gentlemen of Dunedin, in consideration of his improved demeanor towards importers since the publication of a letter complaining of his having carried out his duties in an unnecessarily annoying manner. The money to be contributed by the Evening Star. . We have only a few words more to say on this matter. Counsel, as a rule, although not very particular in the methods they adopt to gain a case, seldom see occasion to go out of their way to introduce needless personal attacks upon the characters of those to whom they are opposed. The junior counsel for the plaintiff in this’ case seems to think differently. A gentleman would have remembered that the proprietor of this journal was defendant, because he felt bound in honor to protect a correspondent whose letter had been pub-, lished. It was not likely, therefore, that a man who would act thus, would be guilty of any of those courses of Action the junior counsel’s fertile brain suggested. Junior counsel did not semember this. So far as the Deputy Harbor Master is concerned, the proprietor of this Journal did not know there was such a person in existence when the letter was published, and - therefore could have no malice in the matter; and in conversation with Captain Thomson, he recommended the withdrawal of the case mainly on the ground that by reviving it the sensitive Deputy Harbor Master would be spreading far and wide his horror of that ridicule which he seemed so earnestly to desire to shun. The junior counsel handled these matters as skilfully as “chops and tomato sauce,” were bandied about in Bardell v. Pickwick, and could Dickens have been present, he would have witnessed a facsimile of the style of oratory described in that celebrated case. Mr Macassey, who followed, seemed to feel this, and evidently thought it ne cessary to take the venom out of many of the unwarrantable assertions made.

The case is decided j but we do not agree with his Honor the Judge, that it will not interfere with the liberty of

the Press. With regard to his sum* 1 ming up there can be but one opinion ; it was fair and impartial; but the effect of the verdict must be that henceforth journals in Dunedin must conclude that neither they nor the public can safely ..comment upon men in public positions;. and the Press is as powerless for redress of wrong as if the papers had been suppressed.