THE Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, 6th JANUARY, 1874.

Hawke's Bay Times, Issue 1539, 6 January 1874, Page 70

THE Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, 6th JANUARY, 1874.

Now that the libel case is finally con" eluded, and the excitement it occasioned has subsided, a few remarks on the law of. the Colony as regards printers and publishers may not be out of place. The law of New Zealand, on this si.!:ject, unfortunately, embodies all the crude and vexatious features, of the English law of libel, which, in imposing upon publishers one restriction after another, each more absurd than the last, has not raised one additional safeguard to the public against the serious offence of libel.

That a reform in tiie law in this respect is urgently needed is undeniable ; but we regret to see that a number of our contemporaries, in calling for a reform, quite fail to indicate the really obnoxious features of the law, and seek for a change in those portions which are really necessary for the public safety. There appears to' be a very pernicious idea current among some of our contemporary journalists, that libel is merely an offence created by law—a malum prohibitum; as distinguished from malum in se. With liberal and exceedingly vague notions of the " liberty of the press," they consider themselves seriously aggrieved if brought to account either for unfounded statements or unwarranted comments. While such a view is taken by any large section of the press, it is almost hopeless to look for a reform in the laws relating to printers and publishers. One of the most singular deliverances on the subject which lias come under our notice was given recently by our local contemporary the Herald. " The true remedy for libel lies in pecuniary damages. The making of it a misdemeanor is, like imprisonment for debt, the last relic of a state of things fast becoming obsolete, and against which public opinion lias long ago pronounced itself in unmistakeable terms." Had there been any such general feeling, it would ere now, under institutions such as prevail in this Colony, have made its influence felt in modifying the law of the land. In point of fact, " public opinion," unless the matter is brought home to it in some personal way, troubles itself very little about the law of libel, which it regards as a matter concerning printers and publishers almost exclusively.

Libel and slander, being offences against reputation, are obviously more serious, and more injurious to the constitution of society, than offences against property, or the minor class of offences against the person. Yet the law is exceedingly strict against the latter class of crimes, and the suggestion that " the true remedy against" horse-stealing, forgery, or aggravated assault, " lay in pecuniary damages," would not only be scouted with horror by the judicial bench, but also, we imagine, by our contemporary the Herald. If, then, these offences arc criminal, libel must be so in a far greater degree. In many cases, where the parties on both sides are wealthy, the award of " pecuniary damages" would be a mere farce. The detractor would willingly pay for the privilege of venting his malice, and the victim would find little compensation for his injured reputation in any pecuniary award by a jury.

During late years, the most gross and antiquated features of the libel law have been removed. Their place has been supplied by certain frivolous and vexatious enactments, to which we shall presently refer; but, on the whole, the principle of the existing law is just and right. The atrocious old maxim, " The greater tlie truth, the greater the libel," is no longer recognized ; and the party accused, if the article is primd-facie libellous, is merely required in defence to establish the two points—first, that the alleged libel is absolutely and strictly true, and that the comments, if any, arc such as are warranted by the facts; and secondly, that the publication of these facts and comments was for the public good, and not from any unworthy vox*

tive. These two requirements are undoubtedly just and reasonable. It may frequently happen that a libel published with a malicious intent, may have the effect of causing disclosures to be made which are for the public benefit; but here the law again, very justly, does not allow tbe defendant the benefit of this fact if it appears that the article -was dictated on personal, and not on pnblic grounds. Eeferring now to the case just concluded (which we'have reported very fully, believing it to be the first of its kind heard in this Colony), we think it shows that, the Press of New Zealand has but little to fear so long as it keeps within its legitimate bounds. Seldom has a case been conducted with greater impartiality and propriety, and there has been no suggestion that any difficulty -was thrown in the way of the defence from first to last. On the contrary, we find the Judge throughout crediting the defendants with the best intentions, and mildly expressing his idea that an " error of judgment" had been committed, in using language implying that an official, who was possibly guilty of "irregularities," had been guilty of " tricky and fraudulent conduct." If any idea was current that less worthy motives had actuated any of the defendants, it was not allowed to influence the result. The conclusion to which the jury came, after long deliberation, was tersely expressed in the terms of the question put by them to the Judge. It was this—" that a journalist, in exposing irregularities in a Government department, had used language stronger than the circumstances warranted " —and this his Honor ruled, and the jury found, to be libel. We come now to another point which the Herald, and still later, the Wairar.apa Standard, appears to consider a great hardship—the liability of partners in a newspaper concern, or what amounts to the same thing, shareholders in a newspaper company. We fail to see the special hardship. A shareholder in an insurance company knows he takes the risk of losses by fire —a shareholder in a newspaper ought to know that he takes a somewhat similar risk, and incurs an unlimited liability in the case of damages being awarded in a libel action. A man should be cautious about entering into a concern over which he has no control—if he is tempted to do so by the prospect (too often delusive) of handsome dividends, he must be content to take the ordinary risks.

"We come now to the amendments which arc needed in the law. In the first place, a newspaper should have a greater degree of protection in publishing fair reports of public occurrences. Reports of speeches in Parliament, of Provincial Councils, and of sworn testimony in Courts of law, or elsewhere, are protected, no matter how libellous; but no such protection is extended to reports of public meetings. An incautious or unfounded statement brings not generally the utterer, but the newspaper who reports him, into trouble; which is manifestly unfair. Much sympathy was felt for the Otago Daily Times? when convicted of libel and cast in heavy damages for simply publishing in the news of the clay, the report of a school committee, reflecting upon a certain schoolmaster: and if we remember rightly, an amount sufficient to pay the fine and costs was promptly raised by public subscription.

The other points in the law which require abolition are, the absurd provisions regarding dates and imprints. Every scrap of paper—supplement or extra, though only half-a-dozen lines, must bear the full title of the paper, date, and imprint. Every job turned out of an office, must bear an imprint sufficient to identify, if required, the printer and his printing-office. Articles of a strictly commercial character (to which an imprint would in most cases be attached) arc, for some inscrutable reason, carefully excepted; but in ball programmes, fancy work of all kinds, in everything; in fact, where an imprint is a disfigurement, the letter of the law requires its presence. It is needless to add, that though heavy penalties are provided, the law is often contravened, and it is so absurd that no attempt has ever been made to enforce it.

The provision requiring the date to appear at the head of each page of a paper is useless and vexatious. Heavy penalties are provided against any breach of this regulation, with the extraordinary provision that any omission or error in the date in any part of the paper shall be prima facie evidence of malice—the onus resting upon the printer f to show that the error—one of very fre-

quent occurrence—was accidental and not wilful. This regulation is never enforced ; many of our contemporaries appearing without any date at the head of their page—as they ought to have a perfect right to do if they thought fit. To give readers the benefit of early news it might be convenient for a journalist to have supplements printed in another province, in Melbourne, or even in London. Such is frequently done, to the great convenience of the public —but how, in this case, is the vexatious regulation regarding dates to be complied with ? The common law is amply sufficient to protect the public from libel; the Printers and Publishers Act is an unmitigated nuisance, and we hope next Parliament to see it removed from the Statute-book which it disgraces.

The English Mail, via San Francisco, eloses to-morrow, Wednesday, the 7th inst., at the Chief Post Office, Napier.

The foundation-stone of the new English Church at Havelock was laid on New Year's Day, the ceremony being conducted by the Rev. W. Marshall.

The New Year holidays were very generally observed in Napier. The weather has been fine and warm—oppressively so, in fact—and the sports and amusements have passed off very successfully. Year's Day was chosen by the jirarious Sunday Schools for their annuaj; celebrations—the Presbyterian and Methodist schools holding their treat in town, and the Roman Catholic schools at Meanee. A very pleasant day was spent by all.

A serious fire broke out some days ago at Pa Wliakaivo, resulting in the destruction of several buildings, a good deal of other property, and in serious injuries to a woman and child—the latter a grandson of the chief Tareha. We have no special particulars of the affair, but merely record such information as has come to town. It was at first reported that the child was burnt to death—a mistake easily accounted for when it is remembered that the information was derived from a native source. A subscription has been opened at the Bank of New Zealand for the relief of the sufferers.

Our obituary notice this morning contains the name of Mr Alfred Chapman, a very old settler, who came to his death in a very sudden manner on Saturday last. Mr Chapman had been part owner of the Edeuham Station, and since he parted with his interest in it ho had been in a low and depressed state of mind. On the news of his death reaching town on Saturday, the Coroner, Dr Hitchings, left for Pukahu, where he held an inquiry at the late residence of the deceased. The principal witness was Johanna McCarthy, the domestic, who stated that on the previous morning, about 8 o'clock, Mr Chapman, having milked the cows, left on horseback, expressing his intention of visiting Edenham, his late station, situated about twenty-six miles from his residence, and the road to which lies over some very rough country. He said he would be back the same evening or next day. Next morning, about halfpast five, he returned, and stated that he had slept out all night. The night had been fine and moonlight, with heavy dew. He was very cold and shivering, and complained of a pain in his inside. He asked for a glass of rum and water, which was given him; he went to the pantry, and took a piece of bread, which he does not appear to have eaten. He went into the parlor at about five minutes to six, and laid clown on the sofa. He still complained of the pain, and asked for some warm water, as an emetic, remarking that he did not think he would get over this. He was shortly afterwards seized wtih a sudden fit, and died at about twenty minutes past six. Mrs Chapman was not examined before the jury, being in a state of complete insensibility, but her statement made to the Coroner, before the inquest, completely corresponded with the evidence. The jury returned a verdict of " Died by the visitation of God."

The District Court was formally opened yesterday at 10 a.m. by his Honor Judge Weston. There was one case for hearing—a charge against one Thomas Ellis, of Gisborne, for obtaining goodsfjunder false pretences. Some comment has arisen on the action of the Resident Magistrate in Gisborne, in committing this case to Napier, when the District Court was to sit in Gisborne during the first week in February. The real reason we believe to be that there is as yet no jury list made out in Gisborne, and not sufficient time to draw it up before the Court sits. On the Court being opened yesterday morning, Mr Lee, who appeared in the absence of the Crown prosecutor, explained to the Court that there was no indictment. The District Court Act provides that every indictment shall bear the signature of either the AttorneyGeneral or Crown Prosecutor. The Crown Prosecutor, who stands in a position corresponding to that of the Grand Jury in the Supreme Court, considering that there was no case, had refused to sign the indictment, which therefore had no legal existence. After some argument from Mr Lee and Mr Cornford, (who appeared for the defence), his Honor, addressing the prisoner, said it was now his duty to discharge him. It was an exceedingly fortunate thing for him (the prisoner) that the District Court had been opened, as otherwise he would have remained in durance till the Supreme Court sat in next June. He would caution him not to be guilty of such acts again—he possibly owed his escape to what might be called a " fluke," and would find ft his best policy to conduct himself honestly in future. The prisoner was then discharged, the jury were dismissed, and the_Court rose.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court on Friday, there were two cases of drunkenness. One offender, failing to appear, forfeited his bail; the other was fined 10s. There were no cases on Saturday. Yesterday one inebriate was fined ss, and Is 6d costs.

We have received the first number of "The Educational Gazette," published by Mr *<T. A. Bowden, of "Wellington. It consists of sixteen quarto pages, and is well got up. It contains educational items from all parts of the Colony; also leading articles, and correspondence, principally bearing upon one subject: the necessity for a national system of education for the Colony. It is to be published monthly, and we wish it every success.

We have to acknowledge the receipt' from the Government Printer of a parcel of Parliamentary Papers; also of the first volume of the Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives for the year 1878. The papers relate to land sales ; to lunatic asylums ; to the treatment of lunatics in Napier asylum (being correspondence in refutation of certain unwarranted charges made by Captain Frazer in the, Legislative Council); to the San Francisco Mail Service ; to Colonial industries ; and to immigration to New Zealand. We have also to acknowledge the receipt, from the Chancellor of the New Zealand University, of the University Calendar for 187*1.