The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1889. Law of Libel

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 6, 29 June 1889, Page 2

The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1889. Law of Libel

Sib Frederick Whitaker has informed the Legislative Council that he intends to introduce a Bill to amend the law of libel in connection with the newspaper press of the colony. From what we already know on the subject we infer that the Bill will be drawn on the same lines as that lately introduced in England. When the draft of the Bill is before us we will give some of the most important provisions in detail, but in the meantime we will express the hope that when it comes up for debate it will receive calm and dispassionate con* sideration at the hands of members. What newspaper proprietors have most to dread is the " tinkering " a Bill of this kind is likely to receive at the hands of legal members, who have an eye to the future. The main object of the Bill, we take it, is to protect newspapers from frivolous or speculative actions, and thereby deprive unscrupulous members of the legal profession of the "loaves and fishes " they love so well. We do not for a moment mean to imply that the legal gentlemen who have the honor to represent constituencies in the Parliament of New Zealand are either unscrupulous themselves, or sympathise with those of their profession outside whose " ways are dark," but flesh is weak, and we are all likely to have a warm feeling for our kin. Whether saints or sinners. Lay members will no doubt be on their guard against specious arguments in support of doubtful clauses, and should, where it is clear the aforesaid legal members are unanimous (if such a thing be possible) m favor of any clause or amendment, look upon it with the gravest suspicion. Common sense in these instances will be found of far greater value than alleged legal smartness or acumen. It is to be understood newspaper writers do not want to enjoy the privilege of doing evil to their fellow men under the protection of the law ; all they desire is to be allowed to faithfully report speakers at board, or other public meetings, without running the risk of being punished for the crime of another man. [Since the above was in type we have gathered ill following particulars from the Wei lington Post : — According to the Law of Libel Bill introduced by the Attor-ney-General in the Legislative Council, fair and accurate reports of proceedings in law courts and of local bodies and commissioners' meetings, &c, are to be privileged, and a defendant may plead in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff has already been indemnified in respect to the same libel. Two or more defendants in different causes for the same libel may apply to have the causes amalgamated, and in many respects the lav is assimilated to that in force in Eng land. Where the libel is of a trivial character and the defendant consents to be tried summarily, the Court may convict him and fine him not more than £50, but there is no provision requiring a plaintiff in civil cases to lodge security as to costs with a view to preventing vexatious actions being instituted. J