PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

NZ Truth, Issue 138, 8 February 1908, Page 8

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

WHAT IT COSTS. Henry Labouchere's Paper. !(By One Who Knows.) The editor of any journal of repute • finds the business of protecting an I undiscerning public from the countless 'pitfalls which beset them one of the 1 chief anxieties of his position. He is everlastingly on the horns of a dilemma,, his desire to give his readers the benefit of the special knowledge he has been able to acquire being before him on one hand, while on the other the risk that he runs under the rigorous English libel laws can never be absent from his mind. He may be convinced of the accuracy of his information, but the difficulties of obtaining proof strong enough to justify running the risk of a subsequent action m the Courts involving heavy costs may be insurmountable. Considering how hardly they fare as a rule, for, provided they win the case, they as likely as not fail to recover their costs, newspapers are ENTITLED TO THE GRATITUDE of the public for their temerity. Take the case, of London "Truth,*" Which has .just- fought another libel action • successfully. - Owing to the fearless manner m which it has always exposed fraud m its many disguises, "Truth" has been involved m more litigation of this class than any othsr publication. It has, to my knowledge, during its existence of more than thirty years, fought about Qftv libel actions, and found itself, as a result, out of pocket to the extent of £60,000, though the number of cases actually lost have not. amounted to more than eight or nine. The enormous expense incurred by "Truth" has not been due to heavy damages, being gives against the paper, for Mr Labouchere has . ONLY HAD TO PAY sums that were at all large on two occasions, these being amounts of £500 and £100 respectively. The few other times when he has had .to pay. the damages have been of a trivial character. The reasons why the proprietor of "Truth" is out of nocket to such an enormous' extent, is that m the majority of casns he has never received the legal costs due to him from persons who have sued him unsuccessfully m the law courts. I am hot exaggerating when I say that m two cases. which "Truth*' won the costs came to over £12,000 for each, but not a penny has ever been recovered. In MANY OTHER CASES SCOUNDRELS . whom he litis attacked m "Truth" have commenced proceedings for libel, and then, at the last moment, withdrawn from .the case, after the defendant had had to incur all the preliminary expenses, which include the , heavy cost of briefing counsel. "Truth's" first libel action, brought against it by a M* Robertson then connected with the Royal Aquarium, which has since that date been pulled down, resulted m failure | for the- plaintiff, and was of historical interest as that m which Mr I Charles Russell, as he then was, the Lord Chief Justice of England, as he subsequently became, won his spurs ;at the Bar. A very big bill was ,incurred by Mr Labouchere shortly afjterwards on account of a series of I actions brought by a man named Lainbri, who, protected by bis status I as ia Turlcish Pasha, pursued a lucrative career m London as a cardsharper, until "Truth" exposed' him. He collapsed miserably at the trial, but Mr Labouchere's satisfaction at the victory was tempered by the knowledge that he had NO CHANCE OF RECEIVING HIS COSTS. The case m which Mr Labouchere got landed for £100 damages was with regard to what he facetiously describes as "a supposed outrage on a village pump m Lincolnshire." The views which he expressed, and led to the libel action, were based on information derived from a parson, and first taught him the danger of ticusting to. the evidence of clergymen. Since then, further ' experience has confirmed him m the opinion that of all on questions of fact, clergymen are the least trustworthy. The only other case m which "Truth" Was mulcted m really serious damages was that brought by. a captain whose j vessel was described as a "floating grogrshop." The jury found that the. facts did not justify the description. ' "Truth," infinitely careful as its. staff is to get at the full facts -before publication, would be a PHENOMENAL NEWSPAPER if it did not occasionally make mistakes. To anyone who appreciates the difficulties, it is a marvellous thing that "Truth" is so seldom wide of the mark. Even if the monetary loss incurred m the task of exposing numberless scandals bas been very heavy, those associated with the paper have the satisfaction of knowing that they have done incalculable service to the public. Take, for example, a case like that of a man called Gardner, who, with another even worse blackguard, carried on a lowclass music-hall agency, into which young servants and work-girls were tempted, with results that spelled their financial and moral ruin. These men had the audacity to institute criminal proceedings, against Mr .Labouchere, but the whole thing was an ignominous farce. Gardner eventually went to gaol on a charge of assault, and his companion fled the country. Dozens of scoundrels engaged m equally reprehensible schemes have been brought to book through, the instrumentality of "Truth." A BRIEF RECORD OF THEIR CRIMES would fill a page of "Reynolds's" (the paper from which this article is republished). Blackmailers ahd char-ity-mongers are classes of miscreants whose cunning wiles have, time after time, been exposed m the columns of "Truth." Matoy of them, m consequence, have be_a sentenced to long terms of penal eervitude. Though the average cost to Mr Labouchere of his fearless attitude towards impostors has been '"''J a year, he nevesr skrinks from the task of investigating and exposing my fraud which justifies his in(cr re ■ c m the public interest. As ' h e j pointed out, be runs the ?is j.*' a I libel action being commenced against

him under circumstances which are pretty certain to result m his favor, and also m HIS FAILURE TO RECOVER COSTS irom the plaintiff. The latter is a hardship which, under the present laws, it seems impossible to escape. I understand that Mr Voules, who edits. "Truth" so ably for Mr Labouchere, is of opinion that some remedy from this state of affairs might be introduced on the lines adonted by the House of Lords, where, m the case oi an appeal, £500 has to be deposited to meet damages. Before leaving the subject, it may be mentioned that m the thirty years of its existence, "Truth" has engaged, on its behalf* most of the eminent counsel of the day. including Russell, as already mentioned, Sir Edward Clarke, "Bob" Reid, the present Lord Chancellor, Sharman, Bankes— for many years junior m "Truth's" actions— and Shee, who appeared m the recent Dakyl case. I hear, by the way, that the plaintiff m the lastnamed case is appealing against the .lury's decision. Mr John Norton has waged a like war m Australasia, and he has fought more libel actions than Mr Labouchere on behalf of the nublic ; indeed, it is almost certain that no man m the world bas fought successfully so many libel actions as Mr John Norton.