The Libel Case.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 245, 21 April 1896, Page 2

The Libel Case.

LOUIS COHEN v. COLONEL GORTON. In delivering judgment yesterday afternoou in tbe above case, His Honor Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast, after referring to the question of privileged communications, aud condemning the practice, frequently in vogue, of persons interested in proceedings at tbe Court writing to Magistrates, Judges, aud officers of tbe Court iu place of doing it in open Court, said: — "I think tbat with regard to tbe question of pnv ilege tbe defence is uot made ont. With regard to the otber part of the defence, I look upon it as an apology, coupled witb tbe payment into Court of an amount in satisfaction. lam satisfied that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of Colonel Gorton, aud tbat an apology was made. I think tbat be was actuated by perfect good faitb and honesty iu making tbe apology be did. He did net apologise because be was actuated by monetary considerations. I do not think that was Colonel Gorton's position. It seems to me tbat bis apology was honest— that he found a mistake had been made, aud be was anxious to rectify it. Now, it was perfectly true tbat because a person makes a mistake, it does uot follow tbat be must not pay for such a mistake. If it appears to me there bas beeu an honest mistake and without any injustice to tbe defendant tbe apology can be looked upon as a whole satisfaction, I think it sbould be takeu as such. Unfortunately in tbis case tbe plaintiff bas not acted in tbe manner I think be sbould have acted. I think be bas allowed his feelings to run away with his common sense. 1 sbould have thought be would bave set a better example to tbe public tban he has done. I think tbat wben be had found out wbat Colonel Gorton bad done he should have taken steps to call upon Colonel Gorton aud ask wbat be meant by bis action, and rectify tbe wrong that had been done. He, however, allowed bis temper to get tbe better of bim. He thought that Colonel Gorton bad not only made a mistake, and tbat he would give no opportunity of rectifying the wrong. This is not tbe kind of action I should expect from Mr Coben, who sbould bave set a proper example to the public. I am entirely agaiust unnecessary actions for libel, whether agaiust private individuals or newspapers. But if a newspaper, finding a mistake bas been made, is willing, and it has at once given a fair and honest apology, tbat is a matter wbicb, I think, should be takeu very fully into account iu the interests of the public. I think tbe £5 paid into Court, together with tbe apology, is ample satisfaction for the mistake made by Colonel Gorton. I shall take into account his apology, and will' also take into account that tbis action was taken without Colonel Gorton being allowed an opportunity of doing more. I thiuk it would bave been well to have done more, and I believe Colonel Gorton would bave done more if the opportunity bad been given him. He would have been quite willing to give an explanation aud apology in open Court aud in any otber way rectify tbe wrong, I do not think he is more to blame than Mr Cohen for this action. I think tbe action is as much tbe fault of Mr Coben as Colonel Gorton. I therefore adjudge the plaintiff is entitled to recover tbe £5 paid into Court, and tbat each party pay their own costs. — Herald.