THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXII, Issue 4100, 23 April 1880, Page 2

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

<> A London paper snys : — " Criminal procedure in cases of libel is a convenient weapon of intimidation, and it is hard to see w/iat useful purpose would be frustrated were such actions made matters for civil p/ocedure only." The incident which gure rise to these comments was a peculiar one. One Kearns, a decayed merchant, proceeded against Sir Francis Truscott, the London Alderman, for having sent him a post card, upon which were written these words: — "Excuse an old friend writing to you to put you on your guard— that you are beintf watched by the police." In support of the plaintiff's case two ''experts" declared the identity of the writing on the card with other writing of Sir "Francis; a female witness swore positively that the writing was that of tho defendant, and the prosecution, sk'Jlfuf/y and not too scrupulously conducted, was beginning to "gain ground," when aMr Smith, law stationer, , stepped forward, declared himself, and i ■was duly proved to be, the writer Jt | was likewise proved that he wrote the i card without Sir Francis' knowledge, and t

entirely on his own responsibility. Mr Smith took a clumsy way of exhibiting his friendship for Mr Kearns, and he certainly caused a pretty flare-up. I3ut the moral of the story lies in this : — " So open is the law of libel to abu9e by malignant or vindicative persons, that Eearus was ultimately able to put Sir Francis in the dock, and force him at great expense to defend himself from an unfuumlcd criminal accusation, and that, too, under the most disadvantageous circumstances, notwithstanding that his cause was so ably and zealously advocated by the AttorneyGeneral and Mr Montagu Williams. What Eearns did when he found his case would not stand publicity was to proceed privately, as it vrere, and prefer bjehind Sir Francis Truscott's back a bill of indictment before the grand jury. He gave Sir Francis no oppor unity of defending him« self there, and, when the grand jury returned a true bill against him, Sir Francis Was placed in a cruel position of having to make what we are almost tempted to call a dumb defence. The proceedings being criminal, he could not bo examined on oath, and was then precluded from either refuting the charges brought against him, or explaining away the myriad insinuations which were adroitly thrown out in the course of the trial.