THE STAR LIBEL CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 142, 4 October 1876, Page 2

THE STAR LIBEL CASE.

We think most of our readers will agree with the remarks made by our contemporary the Guardian on this case :—" The failure of the Grand Jury to find a ' true bill' against the proprietor of the Evening Star is, on the -whole, a satisfactory con-' elusion to a charge which was laid purely with the intention of protecting the interests of the Catholic Church in this Colony. In resenting the aspersion on the conduct t>f his clergy the Bishop of that Church was justified. But the offence was, we think, magnified unduly when it was taken into a court of law. The insertion of the extract from the Tuapeka paper was an oversight for which, of whatever value, the proprietor of the journal was, of course, legally responsible, however morally innocent; and had the offending journalist's attention been drawn to it, or an opportunity for contradicting it been afforded, the matter, we have not the slightest doubt, would have been remedied as far as possible, and there it might very properly have ended. The Tuapeka Times —the real offender, the originator of the slander—apologised, although not prosecuted. There were on evidences of malice on the part of the Star in republishing the paragraph, and there was evidently no attempt at conciliation on the part of those immediately offended. His Lordship will no doubt be satisfied that he has shown that those over whom he has spiritual charge shall not be maligned unjustly and without ensuring his protection as far as possible, while journalists generally will have learnt from the cMarge brought against the Star to be careful in the extraction of items from contemporary journals affecting the standing of the Roman Catholic Church and the pur ; ty of its representative members. The matter has caused a good deal of sectarian feeling, and, we think, without sufficient reason. There is no one in this city that knows Mr. Bell who would believe liim capable of wilfully maligning or hurting the feelings of members of the .Roman Catholic Caurch, and in this matter he had clearly nothing whatever to do with the insertion of the offending paragraph. And sensitive as Roman Catholics are to the honor of their clergy, we do not think that in these circumstances either clergy or laity would have really desired to have seen him punished. Tne rumor bore absurdity and refutation on its face, and no further legal proceedings could jjossibly have increased the refutation.