THE DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE ORKNEY V EVENING STAR.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 328, 7 February 1874, Page 3

THE DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE ORKNEY V EVENING STAR.

From the "Southland News "

The Dunedin papers are sorely exercised on account of the verdict of the special jury impannelled to try a case recently brought before the Supreme Court in that city, in which the Deputy Harbor Master sought to recover £1000 from the proprietor and editor of the " Star " for libel, and actually did recover £50. One of them goes so far as to say that the decision, taken in connection with previous ones, places the local journals in a position comparable only to that occupied by the press in France before the collapse of the Empire — when to attack the Government or anyone connected with it was a grave offence. With all due deference for the opinion of our^Metropolitan contemporaries, we take leave to traverse their conclusions, and for reasons that may be briefly stated. The libel was contained in a letter published by the " Star," of which the first paragraph was, so to speak the text of what followed. It ran thus :—: —

Colonial soil is not favourable to the propagation or growth of Bumbles; but now and again a specimen will crop up, and we have a magnificent one here at present in the person of our lately appointed Deputy Harbour Master.

The writer went on to explain that he applied the term because " The Bumble " had summoned an importer for neglecting to clear his goods off the wharf. It was not attempted to be shown that the official so offensively nicknamed had acted illegally, or otherwise in the strict discharge of his duty. Moreover, if we may judge from newspaper paragraphs, the accumulation of goods on the jetty had become a perfect nuisance, and some serious accidents were said to have occurred in consequence. Hence, in appealing to the law — after trying remonstrance in vain — the Harbour Master did the only thing left open to him if he wished to save himself from the contempt that inevitably attaches to those who give orders they have no power to enforce. The proprietor of the "Star" refused to disclose the name of the writer of the letter, and thus stepped into his shoes and became liable for tbe consequences. If the Harbour Master had acted illegally we could hare sympathised with the defendant, but we hold that as the latter knew to the contrary, he was rightly made to pay for what was, on the face of it a malicious attack by some person to whom compliance with the law was dißtasteful. It has always seemed to us that one of the things to be specially guarded against by the public is a tendency to wreak spite upon those who have to enforce a law — possibly obnoxious, but still the law — instead of using their legitimate influence to obtain its repeal. We maintain that the more objectionable a law is, tho greater the necessity for a rigid adherence to its provisions, for the simple reason that it is in the highest degree unsafe to invest officials with discretionary powers — to place thorn in a position to " make fish of one and flesh of another." Hence we consider that the jury acted wisely, and with a just seuse of tho principle at stake ; and that their decision in no way tends to deter the press from fair criticism of the acts of public men.