The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1886.

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 125, 1 April 1886, Page 2

The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1886.

The Law of Libel

The triumph of the Wellington Press, in the recent libel action against that paper for its outspoken denunciation of the management and practice in the Christchurch Hospital, is virtually a victory for the whole press of the colony. The trial from its commencement was characterised by singular animus against the defendants, and at its conclusion the judge summed up adversely, and said — " If a person published intentionally a matter defamatory of another he published a libel, and it must be taken to be maliciously published without there was just cause of excuse. The article was beyond doubt defamatory, and unless there was just cause the plaintiff was entitled to recover." The jury could not agree and a verdict of three fourths was accepted. One shilling damages was awarded to the plaintiff. The jury then unanimously endorsed the offending article by recommending a rigid enquiry into the management of the Christchurch hospital. One good result of this trial will be that thin skinned individuals will not be >o ready to rush into law when their public actions are criticised, and newspaper proprietors will be more independent. But it must be remembered that the judges hold very opposite views on the law of libel, and juries are sometimes sympathetic. A short time ago we quoted from an Australian exchange that a full Court in Melbourne has decided that newspaper reports of public meetings, notwithstanding their faithfulness, and that they are published for the benefit of the public, are not privileged. The only places where reports are privileged are Parliament and Courts of Justice. This means that if a newspaper gives a faithful report of a public speech containing what may be interpreted to be defamatory matter, an action may be taken against such paper, while the speaker who has honestly given vent to remarks intended for the public good, could also be made a defendant in the action. This is a blow aimed at liberty of speech on public events or public men and their actions, and an attempt to burke the Press. It means that if certain judges had the absolute power in their hands they would strangle the freedom of the Press without mercy. Fortunately there exists the jury to come between them and such absolutism. The certainty that their utterances will be made public has in some instances acted as a deterrent to speakers who were not careful to use mild language when discussing or commenting on the actions of an opponent. We do not believe that any political public meeting was ever held but that some so-called defamatory language was used, and it has been generally understood that the person uttering the words was alone to be held responsible for any after consequences. Now it ib desired by some to make the press act as a scapegoat to bear the sin into the wilderness of a purgative lawsuit. One of the most glorious privileges of men living under British Eule is the liberty of the press, for it is an evidence of the freedom of the people. It is therefore the duty of individuals, as well as the Press, to jealously watch any infringment of the right to discuss public men and their actions. We heartily congratulate Messrs Eoydhottsb and Wakefield on the happy termination of what has been an expensive and unpleasant experience to them.