New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5086, 12 July 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1877.

Thebe was no inconsiderable amount of interest concerniug the libel case heard at the sittings of the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. It was a pity that the case ever came before the Court; but as it did, perhaps the most satisfactory conclusion that could have been arrived at was come to. There will always be iu a community people who do not know how to restrain their passions or their pens, and who consider that the best way to conduct a newspaper is to make it remarkably persona], and cause it to resemble the typical Irishman, who bits a head wherever he finds it. This kind of thing pays for the nonce in a fleeting notoriety ; but sooner or later only leads to disaster of all kinds. On the other hand, some people are morbidly sensitive of anything that may he written about them, and too readily seek a redress from the law, which public opinion would in time give them far more satisfactorily. The verdict given in the case Anderson v. Gillon, Kent, and Waters yesterday appears to have created some slight degree of confusion as to its exact bearing. Without endeavoring to pronounce a legal opinion upon it, we may point out how it stands. There were two counts in the declaration, the one complaining of the article in reference to plaintiff’s conduct as a member of the Wellington Provincial Council, and the other claiming damages on the article alleged to have imputed dishonesty to plaintiff in his commercial relations with the Independent. The jury awarded 40s. on the first count, but found 1 for the defendant on the second count. It is contended that the effect of this split—the difference in the verdict—is that defendant has to pay costs on the first count, and plaintiff pays the costs on the second ; but this by no means implies that the costs will fall equally on both. We hear that the proportion of the total costs will fall upon plaintiff and defendant respectively in the proportion of 1 to 5, and that the costs will in all amount to about £3OO.