THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1882. LARCENOUS JOURNALISM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2489, 29 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1882. LARCENOUS JOURNALISM.

There are few spectacles sadder than the lapse into vice of any one who haa succeeded in obtaining a character for morality and virtue. Even though the position he attained by incessant selflaudation and public expressions of thankfulness after the manner of the Pharisee of old, yet one cannot but regret that the thin cloak of respectability, which has been made to fit round with so much care and assiduity, should at least have fallen off. To this state we are deeply sorry to see our venerable and respected contemporary, the " Lyttelton Times," has come after posing itself before an admiring world as the model for all journals to look up to. Usually if any little bit of journalistic dirty work is to be done the services of the Hesperian penny dip is called into requisition, and thus the self-righteous Thunderer has hitherto managed to preserve something like respectability in journalism. Bnt this morning a direct and palpable steal of the Globe report of the East Christchurch Licensing Committee appears in the columns of this immaculate " Times" nearly word for word. So complete and cool an appropriation without one word of acknowledgment shows that our morning contemporary is no new hand at it. It is without exception, the most unblushing piece of journalistic larceny we have ever seen. There is not even an attempt to give an air of respectability to the conveyance of the report by altering it substantially in form, a fact which proves conclusively to our mind that the moral character hitherto assumed by our contemporary is a delusion and a snare. It is true that the subject decided upon was important, and that the " Times " could not get the information in any other way than through our columns; but certainly a journal professing such high moral principles should, whilst making use of what had appeared in the columns of another journal, had the decency to acknowledge the source from which it was taken. In this respect the conduct of the off-shoot twinkler in connection with the ascent by Rev. Mr. Green of Mount Cook, shows its parent a good example. We had been told, with the usual self-depreciation so common to our contemporary the " Times," that in view of the absorbing interest felt by all classes of the community in the attempt on the part of three persons to get higher up in the world than the rest of us, a special special had been despatched. The world, we are sure, read with the deepest interest and thrilling awe the narrative of the hardships and perils gone through by that special before the light of whose adventures by flood and field, the climbing antics of the Rev. Mr. Green and his friends sank into insignificance. But, like the sensational stories in the "London Journal " and similar publications, where the heroine is left for a month hanging over a precipice by one finger, so our special correspondent friend, after harrowing up the souls of his readers, suddenly disappears. Our contemporary the " Press," without having a superfine special special despatched to the scene, published a full account of the ascent. The " Star " had to copy this ; compared to the bitterness of which the strongest infusion of wormwood would be honey, but it acknowledged the source from which it derived it. It may be remarked hero en jJassant that it was unfortunate for our Gloucester street friend in this respect that their venture failed, but they did what Englishmen should do —took their disaster kindly, and copied from a more fortunate contemporary with an acknowledgement. Had the " Times" done the same this morning, and acknowledged that its source of information on a very important subject affecting a large section of the mercantile community was the Globe, we should not have had a word to say. But even whilst condemning the barefacedness of the robbery we feel disposed to temper justice with mercy. It is a very sad state of things, and we would earnestly beg of our contemporary to endeaTor to cenquer the larcenous propensity which appears to have taken such firm held. In the words used by Mr. Hoskins in one of those sketches with which he used to delight us, let the " Times " try gradually to get over this sad failing. It has stolen half a column from the Globe to-day, let it take a paragraph from the " Press " to-morrow, a three line item from the " Telegraph " the next day, and so finally emerge once more into that atmosphere of full flavored respectability and quasi morality which is so congenial to it. A POINT OF LAW. Ukdkh this heading some reference has been OKde in these columns to a oiee which seems to involve considerable hardship to one of the parties concerned. In the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning Mr Button brought its develoDnient before the Court. He snid that ore Vetalli Ohezaree, residing at Wellington, ran up a bill for groceries obtained from a Mr Mclntyre, and levanted without paying. Mclntyre was informed that he hsd asssumed the came of Victor, u:id settled aa u painter in Gloucester street, Christchurch. Thereupon Mclntyre obtained a summons, which was sent to Christchurch, and duly served upon one Solomon Victor, a painter, residing in Gloucester street, Christchurch, who, however, appeared before Mr Beetham, with Mr Button ei his counsel, and proved by two witnesses, who traced him from a timo long before the time the debt was incurred, that he conld not Ira the debtor. In point of fact, this Victor had never been in Wellington in his life. Mr Beetham, as ueual, certified for costs, and the depositions were sent to Wellington, where, on the return to the summons being presented, the case was struck nut, and the Magistrate refuted to allow Victor the costs he had incurred in proving his identity, Mr Gully, who appeared for plaintiff, st&tirg that as Mr Button's client was the wrong men he should hiive taken no notice of the surnmoi.s. Aguinst this view of the ciso Mr Button now quoted a case, Meggit v Bahunster, reported in VII., L.T., N.H., 680, iu which a man, under eimilar circumstances, t >ok no notice of a eummosi. A ca. so,. was issued, he was lodged in prison, and had to pay the debt and casts to get out, fie thea.

moved the Oourt to set aside the judg and to order plaintiff to pay costs. Tbe ■Court refuged to mate any order, except on condition that he undertook not to bring any action against plaintiff for false imprisonment, and costs were refused, the Oourt ruling that he ought to have defended the aotion or have moved to set aside the service of the summon a. In Stevenson v Thome, 13 Meason and Willsby, 149, a case in ■which an application had been made to set aside a summons which had been served on tho wrong party, objeotion was taken to the affidavit attached, in that the objector did not describe himself as defendant in the cause. Baron Pollock held that tho party, served rightly or wrongly, might, for some purposes, be considered as the defendant. Mr Button also named, as bearing on the case and as contrary to the judgment of the magistrate at Wellington. Pilbrow v Pilbrow, 0.8., 730; Eiohards v Hanley, 10 Jurist, 1057, Q. 8.; Walker v Melland, 1 t> and L, 159, and Kelly v Beetbam said, in taking the evidence produced for Victor, he was aoting as a mere machine, and it could not be expected that he would express any opinion as to what hid happened afterwards. Mr Button said he was aware of that, but as tho case might occur to any person, and was one of peculiar hardship to his client, who could nit afford to go to any further expense in tho matter, ho thought it would ba for the general good if it was ventilated. The matter then dropped.