NEWSPAPER PRIVILEGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 46

NEWSPAPER PRIVILEGE.

(Fkom Oub Own Cobbespondent.)

LONDON, June 18.

Before Lords Justices Fletcher Moulton and Bucklev and Sir John Bigham. in the Court of Appeal, the case of John

(Photos bj GuyJ

Jones and Sons v. the Financial Times came up for consideration. Phis was 'an appeal by the Financial Times from a verdict and judgment in a special jury action which was tried before Mr Justice Darling at the Leicester Assizes in January last. The action was for libel, and the defence was privilege. At the trial: the learned judge overruled

the defendants' submission that there was no case to go to the jury on the ground of privilege, and directed the jury that the only issue they had to decide was that of damages. The iury on this direction found for the plaintiffs with £100, and the defendants appealed. Mr Tindal Atkinson, K.C., and Mr A. Neilson appeared in support of tha ap-

peal; while Mr T Holhs Walker was for the respondents. Mr Atkincon, in opening the -appeal, eaid the plaintiffs were engineers carrying on pusiness at Loughborough, and they complained of a publication which appeared lin the Financial Times of July Iff last- under the heading " Receiverships Registered "—"" — " Appointments filed at Somerset* Hous3 under the

1907 Act." Thfn an.ong other companies |appeared the following: — " Jchn Jores and Sons (Limited), engineeis, Loughborough). — A notice of the appointment of J. W. Davidson. C.A., of 6 Caste street, Liverpool, as receiver and manager i by order of the court has b en filed, 1 pursuant to s. 11 (2) of " The Companies Act, 1907."

That section required that if any person obtained an order for the appointment of a receiver and manager he must, within seven days, give notice to the registrar of companies at Somerset House, and have the fact entered upon the record. That record could be inspected by anybody on payment of the cum of Is, and, there-

I fore, any person searching the record I would have exactly the' information which j appeared in the above notics and whiah ! formed, the alleged • libel. - - - j After 'arguments of counsel, Lord -,Jusi tioe Fletcher ' Moulton, in giving' -Judgment, said that in his opinion the direction of the learned judge to the jury that the only question for them was that of damages

was incorrect. He thought the defendants could succeed on two grounds — fiist oi privilege and second on justification. Justification was not formally pleaded, tut it was impliedly raised by the defence. He thought that what the defendants had done was absolutely privileged. The courts in the case of Sear lee v. Scarlett had laid down the principle that docu r.ents w.......

by law were open to public inspection were documents the contents of wh'ch might be published, and such a publication was privileged. The L-gislature thought it well in the public interest that an- open record should be kept of receivership orders. That was in order that the fact should be disseminated among the public. Newspapers that took notice of these

registrations kept under statutory authority were simply assisting the Legislatuie in carrying out that object. In his opinion the defendants were entitled to succeed and to have judgment, with costs, entered for them. Lord Justice Buckley and Sir J. Bigham concurred, and the appea 1 was accordingly allowed and judgment entered .j, ,ju cefendants. witn cos'.s.