The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1912. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 98, 11 September 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1912. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Last week a Wanganui newspaper was proceeded against by the local Mayor for printing a letter criticising liis Mayoral actions. The comment was to j the point, and was certainly not malicious or damaging, and this view was token by the presiding Judge and the jury, who gave a verdict accordingly for the paper. Yesterday, an individual sought to recover damages from our ■local contemporary for an alleged libel arising out of the report of a case in which plaintiff had figured at a previous sitting of the Court, the chief alleged defamation being contained in the heading of the ease, which read, "An Extraordinary Case." Obviously, there was not the scintilla of a libel in the heading, nor was there in the report, which was disinterested, impartial and correct, and the Judge, after telling plaintiff some home truths, which we hope he will take seriously to heart, simply laughed the case out of court. Our purpose in referring to these cases is to point out how defective is the libel law which enables cases of such a trumpery nature to be brought against a newspaper for merely doing its duty by the public it serves. Both newspapers in question obtained verdicts, certainly, but a favorable verdict is always expensive, whatever coats are allowed. As the law stands, any man of straw, may bring an impossible action against a paper and put it to the expense of defending the case, and the paper has no redress whatever. This is unjust. We have always held the opinion that before a writ for libel or slander is issued the merits of the propo- action should be investigated by a '' '.gistrate, sitting for a time as a grand j.ry. and be only proceeded with when the magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case has been established. Also, it would be only right to insist that an amount of money sufficient to defray costs, should the action fail be deposited with the Court. This would give newspapers adequate protection and at the same time would not interfere with the rights and interests of the body politic and would serve to prevent the bringing of frivolous actions by irresponsible persons. The thin-skin-ned man with a fancied grievance or a "bee in his bonnet," or the out-and-out blackmailer, would be the only people affected, and they should be affected'at tlie curliest possible opportunity. The Press j?, or should be, the watchdog of public safety. It is its duty to expose abuses, to denounce wrong-doing, to give a lead to public opinion, to guard the rnimmmily as far as possible from mis fake--. Tint it can never adequately do its duly in these re-peels unless it is allowed reasonable protection. A measure of relief was granted to news-

papers a short time back, but it did not go far enough. For instance, whilst protection is afforded to the publication of fair and accurate reports of proceedings of local authorities, there is no protection afforded to newspapers reporting public meetings. Both in Britain and some of the colonies reports of such meetings are privileged. The English law, which has been in operation for 14 years, lias been proved sound. It very properly provides a valuable safeguard against abuse, for not only must the re. port be published without malice, but the publication must be for the public benefit. The state of the libel law in New Zealand is a standing disgrace to a country that pretends to be enlightened, democratic and fair dealing, and should bo, remedied at the earliest opportunitv. There has been a persistent agitation for such an amendment for years, and it is mainly a well-defined form of political autocracy that has hitherto- stood in the way of this measure of justice being granted to a responsible profession.