THE LIBEL CASE ORKNEY V. BELL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 325, 28 January 1874, Page 3

THE LIBEL CASE ORKNEY V. BELL.

(From the " Otago Daily Times") We cannot say that we are suprised at the verdict of the jury in the case Orkney v. Bell. The special jurymen whoawarded fifty pounds to Captain Orkney because a letter had been published calling him a "Bumble," only followed the example of other Dunedin Special Jurymen. Indeed there never has been an action for libel brought against the Press but what has always resulted in the defeat of the Press. We would therefore not comment so much on the special circumstances of the case just decided, but rather point out some of the corollaries that necessarily follow from such verdicts as those given in Orkney v Bell. One, and perhaps the most important to newspapers, undoubtedly is, that the class forming the special jurymen in Dunedin does not desire a critical Press. This result again arises from many causes. In a small town, or amongst a small coiomnnity, there is a knowledge of every one by his neighbour which makes any criticism at all approaching that of a personal kind extremely unpopuJar. That there is such a cause as this a perusal of many of Jthe British papers abundantly manifests. Were a Dunedin paper to publish articles such as appear in the Scotsman, the " Pall Mall Gazette," or the " Dublin Freeman's Journal," there would be enough of employment for all the lawyers in libel actions only. And this very knowledge of every one by his neighbour is preventive of the growth of any such thing as public opinion. In New Zealand there is no New Zealand public opinion; and as for public opinion in the provinces, there isnothing deserving such a name extant in any of them. The Provincial system is blamed for this, and no doubt the want of a common centre in the Colony — the want of a head to our body politic — is one of the causes of this lack of public opinion. But the "knowledge of every one by his neighbour" is also prejudicial to its existence, if the various libel cases that have been tried in Otago bad been tried in a place where the parties to the actions were unknown, we believe the verdicts would have been different ; and such being the case, this last verdict, couplerl with tho3e that have preceded it is simply the newest warning^ to journalists, tbat in the treatment of any subject they must deal in vague generalities, and avoid sharp or personal criticism. In fact, journals must recognise that there is in New Zealand as active and vigilant a Press censor as ever existed in Louis Napoleon's palmiest days.

(From the " Guardian.") The unsatisfactory state of the law of libel was further illustrated last week in the Supreme Court of r>u«od;u. Tne plamtitt, as in tlie INapier case upon which we commented the other day, is a public servant holding the office of deputy harbour-master of the port of Dunedin ; the defendant, Mr. George Bell, is proprietor of the " Evening Star " long known and deservedly respected as a journalist. The cause of action was trivial, if not childish ; and the result was remarkable in this, that although the publication complained of was proved by the plaintiff's own witness, and immediate superior, to have had the effect of increasing his superior's confidence in him, and although he failed himself to cite a single instance in which it had any prejudicial effect, the special jury awarded him £50 as a salve for his wounded feelings. Such a finding is simply preposterous, and should induce the Government to prepare a bill during the recess for the amendment of the law of libel. It is a matter of the greatest urgency, for, should the law remain as it is, anything like independent criticism of public men, or comment upon matters of public interest, vvill be impossible, except under the peril of heavy penalties. Ths jury, ir actions of libel, is constituted judge of the law and the facts ; and it is not going too far, we think, to say that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the finding of juries in all such actions would be inadmissable in any other cause. In fact, the ■whole matter is at the discretion of the jmy, which may be influenced in its finding by a variety of motives outside the evidence. In the case before us, of Orkney v. Bell, the finding is clearly against the evidence and the impartial and intelligent charge of the Judge, although this result may Lave been the consequence of that state of mind attributed to the Dunedin Magistrates by the plaintiff through Mr. Branson, and from the same cause, "namely, that they were thoroughly " fogged " by counsel learned in the law.

From the " Evening Star." Again has a Dunedin jury delivered a verdict in an action for libel, calculated seriously to impair the value of the Press as a social institution. From the peculiar relationship to the case in which we stand as defendants, we feel some delicacy in commenting upon it, especially as the jury, being a special one, is supposed to have comprised some of our ablest Dunedin men. We fear those who live in other parts of the colony, and' in other colonies, will not be impressed with the wisdom displayed in the decision at which they have arrived. Should the evidence be examined on which thoy have based it, it will be found not to bear out their conclusion. The plaintiff claimed damages where none were proved. He claimed to have been hampered in the execution of his duty ; the only proof of whicli he gave the jury*vvas that a lighterman threatened to write to the "Evening Star" to complain of him ; he expressed fear that he would suffer in the estimation of his superiors ; whereas his superior officer said that, so far from that, he regarded him, after the letter, far more than before that complained of was published. He was not dismissed from office, nor fined, no refused promotion — he suffered neither in character nor pocket ; what damage could he claim ? As, therefore, we cannot gather from the evidence that the Deputy Harbor Master was entitled to damages, to what are we to attribute the extraordinary verdict of ten jurymen — for there were, we have heard, two dissentients ? We should like to place some plea before the world as a shadow of an excuse for them, for we do not like the idea of it being said Dunedin juries always" award damages against the Press, right or wrong. Perhaps, therefore, it may have been that the personal experience of many of those jurymen led them to conclude that the Deputy Harbor Master was a very obliging and courteous gentleman. If they decided on their private experience, we congratulate the Deputy Harbor Master on his having so many respectable friends — friends so warm-hearted as to lead them to forget they wore only to judge according to the evidence. But, Gentleman of the Jury, did it Btrike you that this kindly courteousness on the part of the Deputy Harbor Master was not always shown to others with whom he came in contact ? — that is plain, from his evidence and Captain Thomson's — and that in all probability the urbanity of demeanour which gained him your respect was a new feature developed after the -publication of the letter in question ? That, in fact, it was the rod, the use of which led him te adopt a more courteous bearing ; and that you have actually compelled the "Evening Star" to pay for schooling the Deputy Harbor Master for your benefit ? The result of your decision, if we are correct in our surmise, may be very properly stated thus, in ordinary newspaper phraseology : On Friday, the Deputy Harbor Master was presented in the Supreme Court . with a testimonial of fifty pounds by ten gen- . tlcmen 'of Dunedin, in consideration or his improved demeanour towards imperters since the publication of a letter oomplaining of his having carried out his dutieß in an unnecessarily annoying manner. The money to be contributed by the "Evening Star."