THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2307, 26 August 1881, Page 3

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS.

A case of some interest to advertisers was heard this morning in the Besident Magisl r >1 e’* Court, before Mr Whitefoord. It was a claim by the proprietors of the “Lyttelton Times ” Company (Limited) for £4 3s Bd, being the charge for inserting in the “ Star ” advertisements for the defendants, Taylor, Panps and Co,

It appeared that plaintiffs had contracted for a certain sum to insert the trrdeadvertisement of defendants for a term, giving defendants the privilege within certain limits of altering it from time to time. The advertisement, after running two months, had been altered ; but, on its appearance in the altered shape, plaintiffs found that it contained a paragraph which they considered libellous, or, at any rale, objectionable. They then gave notice to defendants that they could not continue to insert the advertisement as it then stood, pnd requested him to alter it, stating at the same time that they would rather lose the r.dveitisement then publish it unless altered, Mr Taylor then saw the manager of the company, and seeming to be much offended at the course taken, ordered the withdrawal of the advertisement, and asked for his account. On the (presentation of the account, however, defendants refused to pay the cost of the insertions of the edvertisement which hed alrea iy been mede, and plrintiffs brought the present action to recover the amount ai above.

Mr Stringer, for defendants, grounded the defence on the fact that the notice of withdrawal had not been given in w.iting, as was the requirement of newspaper offices, as proved by plaintiff’s manager and Mr Briggs, of the “Press;” and, secondly, because the paper, he.said, was bound to carry out their contract, even if doing so involved the publishing of a libel. He denied, moreover, that the paragraph contained anything libellous. Tlie Magistrate said ho thought from the evidence that notice of withdrawal had been given ; and, further, that plaintiffs were perfectly justified in refusing to insert anything in their paper offensive to others. They hrd inadvertently allowed the altered advertisement to appear, but immediately its nature was discovered they took steps to remedy the mistake. To do so they hrd made a reasonable request to defendants, which they had refused to listen to, and the advertisement had consequently been discontinued. It was absurd to expect plaintiffs to damnify themselves by laying themselves open to an action for libel, especially as the first shape of the advertisement for which the agreement had been made was veiy different to that which they refused to continue to insert. Plaintiffs acted very properly in the course they had taken, and defendants must pay for the work that had actually been done for them. Judgment would he for the amount claimed, with costs loss certain deductions admitted to have been paid. Mr Beeves appeared for plaintiffs.