The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1874.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 6, 7 January 1874, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1874.

We venture to Bay that the time of the Supreme Court was never occupied in the hearing of a more trivial, trumpery case than that of Donne v. Lucas which was tried yesterday. In the hurry of making .up the country edition of the Evening Mail of the 10th of July last, a telegram was inserted in the absence of the editor without being read. The telegram purported to be a report of a meeting held by Mr Iyess at Reefton, and contained an objectionable remark with reference to Mr Donne. The editor in looking over the country edition discovered the words whioh formed the ground of yesterday's action, aod at once ordered them to be struck out. In some way or another it came to Mr Donne's ears that the country edition of that day contained matter which did not appear in the later edition, and he procured one of the papers. We should

have thought that (he mere fact of the words having been excised from nihetenths of the day's issue would have been sufficient proof that the publication of them in the few numbers first struck off wus unintentional and accidental, but Mr Donne took a different', view of the matter, and instead, of .speaking to the proprietors or editor of the paper and demanding from them an explanationand apology, which would have been readily and willingly made, he hastened off to his solicitor, and the result was that legal proceedings were commenced. An apology, as frank, ample, and handsome bs any gentleman could possibly desire for the unfortunate mistake tbat had been made, was published in the leading columns of this journal and an offer made to pay all costs incurred by Mr Donne up to that date, but that was not deemed sufficient, and a reply was received from his solicitors to the effect that the only plaster that could possibly prove soothing to the sore place that had been created upon their client by the publication of the libellous matter, must be composed of bank notes. And so the matter went into Court, and Mr Donne ha3 to pay , heavy costs, and the proprietors of this paper have to pay heavy costs, all because a pure accident had occurred which was remedied as soon as discovered, and for whioh the amende honorable was offered at the earliest opportunity. We say at the earliest opportunity, because, as the editor stated in his evidence yesterday, he had thought of offering a public apology as soon as he discovered what had been done, but upon consideration decided that to do so would only be to give wider publicity to the fact that offensive remarks had been, made by Mr Ivess concerning Mr Donne. Upon this portion of his evidence the Judge, in his summing up, remarked that the absence of an apology on an earlier date than that on which it appeared was very reasonably accounted for by tha editor. Upon the general management of the paper, too, his Honor commented in favorable terms, saying tbat the arrangements seemed to be good, and tbe supervision all that could be desired, with one single exception, namely, that there appeared to have been an " unguarded" period of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour just prior to the time that the country edition usually went to press. The existence of a desire to exclude objectionable matter was, he thought, also shown by the fact ■ that no sooner did the words complained of by Mr Donne meet the editor's eye than he ordered them to be excised. In explanation of any time having been left " unguarded," we may state that it was only telegrams tbat were ever inserted at the last minute without being previously read by the editor, and that very nearly the whole of our telegrams are forwarded by the manager of the Anglo- Australian Press Agency, and therefore are supposed to contain nothing unfit for publication. The receipt by us of a press telegram from any private individual, unless previously asked for, is df very rare occurrence indeed, but on the occasion in question it unfortunately happened that such a message did come, and still more unfortunately that it arrived during the few minutes which then were, but have not since been, left '• unguarded.". The Attorney-General in addressing the jury was pleased to allude to this and other evening papers as f penny rags " which sought to obtain popularity by the publication of sensational and scurrilous paragraphs. As evidence of the scurrility of tbe Evening Mail he could only instance the publication of the telegram complained of, which, a few minutes later, he argued was the result of gross negligence. The logic was a little questionable. If a desire lo publish scurrilous and sensational mrtter induced the insertion of the objectionable words, how could it be possibly said that their appearance in print was owing to gross negligence ? And the proposition may be .reversed. But apart from this reasoning, we should like to know what grounds the Attorney-General had for alluding to this paper in such terms as he thought fit to make use of ? We are not aware why there should be any difference in respectability between a penny and a twopenny, or even a twopenny halfpenny journal. Because an editor undertakes the management of one of tbe former, it docs not follow that he should act in defiance of all gentlemanly instincts and feeliDgs, and we certainly do not think that our readers have any reason to endorse the opinion that the AttorneyGeneral pretended to have formed of the conduct of this journal. The fact was that he had an exceedingly weak case, and he therefore adopted the course usually pursued under such circumstances. He roundly abused the other side.