Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1338, 4 August 1883, Page 2

Another prosecution for libel I “ Mr. “ W. L. Rees, on behalf of Mr. C A. “ DeLautoub, Secretary to the New “Zealand Native Land Settlement “ Company, Limited, appeared ” (before our RM. on Thursday) “to “ prosecute an action for libel against “ Mr. K. Kerr, the proprietor, and “Mr. C. 11. C. Webb, the printer of “ a paper called Facts.” Such is the announcement set forth in a printed slip which now lies before us. We have no intention whatever to pass any remarks on the merits or demerits of the case itself, but we feel fully justified in discussing its surroundings, and those matters which have led up to this point, as well as its bearings upon us as a community. In the first place we will ask what was the object of the last action taken by Mr. W. L. Rees against Mr. K. Kerb, after the latter had been committed? Did the complainant tell the truth when he, in the witness box, deliberately swore that the writings of the defendant were calculated to cause a breach of the peace, and that he went in bodily fear of the defendant ? Was this the truth which Hod was called to witness? Was this the reason for which he wished to have the writer bound over? We unhesitatingly say no. It was a deliberate and crafty attempt to stifle criticism, or in other words to gag the Press. Had it not been that an honourable and enlightened gentleman occupied our judicial throne, this insiduous trick might have succeeded. By his remarks and by his decision, our Magistrate clearly showed his perspicuity. He saw clearly with ourselves that it was no bodily fear, no fear of a breach of the peace, but a Machevellian attempt to utilise the law to private and interested ends It cannot for one moment be supposed that this action was taken in the interests of justice, The conduct of the prosecutors cannot- be too closely scrutinised. They are a band of lawyers to whom “ law is cheap,” and the public are, to a certain extent, at the mercy of such, as they can with facility and ease put the ponderous machinery of the law in motion at small trouble and cost to themselves. What is play to them is death to the majority. We cannot help thinking that some provision should be made to protect the public against combinations of this sort. We certainly have little to fear from the evil here, whilst the Seat of Justice is so worthily filled, but in the event of the reverse being the case, the persons and property of the majority would no doubt be in great jeopardy.