CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 968, 10 August 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

WHAT IS LIBEL ? TO THE EDITOR. “ Do I sleep, do I dream ? “ Do I wonder or doubt ? “ Is things what they seem, “ Or is wisions about ? “ Is our civilization a failure ? “ Or is law of libel played out ?” Sir, —Great as the astonishment of many persons was at the verdict of the jury in the case Rees v. Wickham, it must have been much greater at the summing up of the Judge who presided. After reading that carefully one is left in a state of bewilderment, and the questions arise, can these things be ? Is it possible to libel a public man ? On reviewing the ingenious alternatives placefl before the jury by the Judge in this case, I am inclined to answer, “ You cannot libel a public man.” You can always avoid the consequences by saying, “that was not my intention, it is merely my strong way of putting it.” If the answer is good in Wickham’s case it ought to be good in any other case But, suppose any person in criticising the Judge s summing up and general bearing in this case, (and it is settled that the public acts of a minister, judge, actor, &c., are subject to comment, no matter how severe, if honest,) were to use language anything ’approaching that used in the Free Lance, on tlie occasions complained of, how would Juchm Gillies feel ? I will not take advantage of the opportunity afforded me of libelling the Judge, or of defiling my pen by the use of false facts and violent abuse, for I feel that the decision in this case is wrong, and must not be relied on as a precedent ; there must have been some false feeling of pity in the minds of the jury that it would be hard to make Wickham suffer for the fault of another, or the like, which prevented the usual verdict in such cases.

On a late occasion Judge Gilfies informed one of the witnesses that the occupation of a licensed interpreter was not to be named in the same breath with that of an articled clerk to a solicitor of “ this honorable court.” But if solicitors of that honorable court are to be vilified, abused, and made the mark for the scurrility of a print admittedly facile princeps in libellous abuse, if false statements are to be made about thAm, if articles are to* be published of them which no decent paper would print, and if, on the attempt being made by a “ solicitor of that honorable court ” to obtain redress, the Judge is to assist in inventing plausible excuses and alternatives for the libeller, and finally to drag the red herring of political feeling across the track ; then, I think, most men would prefer to remain licensed interpreters rather than become' “ solicitors of that honorable court.” To allow persons falsely to bespatter “ solicitors of that honorable court ” w’ith impunity—nay, more, to countenance such a proceeding—is certaily uot the way to bring the profession into respect. —I am, Sir, A Licensed Interpreter.