NEWSPAPER AND LIBEL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 543, 29 May 1933, Page 2

NEWSPAPER AND LIBEL

A JUDGE'S COMMENT. "WHAT ARE WE COMING TO?" "This action ought never to have been brought," said Mr. Justice Charles, in entering judgment, with costs, in favour of the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo, Ltd., in an action brought against them in the King's Bench Division on 16th February last by Mr. iRichard Reginald Hughes, of Elmstead Avenue, Wembley Park, and formerly of Holyhead, to recover damages for alleged libel said to have been contained in a report published in the Liverpool Post on 11th October, 1928. Mr. Hughes complained that the report meant that he had abused his position as a recipient of relief by refusing an offer of charity for his son. The defence was that the words were a fair and aecurate report of a guardians' meeting, and. that they were published without malice. At the conclusion of the plaintifi s evidence, Mr. Justice Charles pomted out that newspapers did not vouch for the truth of everything containedxn the report of a public meeting. ^ a are we coming to," asked the judge, I "if newspapers cannot report a public meeting without sending emissaries all over the country to ascertain that everything said at the meeting and accurately reported is true?" Mr. Cope Morgan, for the plaintixr, said that if it came to the knowledge of newspaper owners that a report contained statements which were maccurate and damaging, it was proper that the newspaper should give an explanation as to the facts. . Mr. Justice Charles: What is a newspaper to do if, after the publication of a report of a meeting, someone writes calling attention to the fact that one of the things said at the meeting — and accurately reporte is untrue, and, promising to send a statement for puhjlication,, Ws to send such a statement? "I am prepared to ' rule, ' contiqued Mr Justice Charles, "that there is no evidence that this report is unfan or inaccurate, and that there is no evidence of malice." The jury intimated that they had • heard sufficient of the case. I am not in .the least surprised at the jury £ action/' observed Mr. Just'ice Charles

who added, "I would be rather astonished if the jury were not dissatisfied with the plaintiff's case." — Manchester Guardian report, 17th February, 1933.