A JUDGE ON PRESS LIBELS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1846, 22 November 1884, Page 2

A JUDGE ON PRESS LIBELS.

Mr Justice Innes, in summing up the evidence in the action for damages for alleged libel—Davis v Fairfaxsaid he had no hesitation in telling the jury that the matters which were spoken of, alluded to, and discussed in the two paragraphs before the Court were of public interest,. upon which not only the Press had a right to comment, but every member of the community had an equal right, They all knew and acknowledged gratefully that the Press, when properly conducted, was an enormous and an incalculable benefit to the well-being of a community. They lived in times now when nobody in his senses ever dreamed of controverting that position. It was not easy to estimate the advantages which society derives from a properly conducted Press, nor was it easy to estimate the obligations of gratitude under which the community labored to those who conducted the Press. The matter at present before the Court was one of public interest, which would justify any writer in the public press in discussing fully and freely the acts and conduct of the persons concerned. So long as the truth was adhored to —and by truth he meant the substantial broad truth, not of necessity accuracy in any little manner of detail —and so long as the writer confined himself to fair and reasonable comment —comment fairly and,.legitimately arising out of facte—the writer or publisher would not be subjeot to an action for libel—no matter how severe the animadversion or how unqualified the condemnation. At the Bame time they must bear this in mind, that untruthful and unfounded statements must not be made against individuals; and if they were made the writer was sible. The quPßtjon jn this instancewas whether or not the article was justified; wore the paragraphs a fair, substantial, and truthful account of the oiroumstances of the case, or did they transgress the bounds of fair and legitimate comment 1 If the paragraphs did do so, the plaintiff ■• was entitled to damages, but if they did not, the verdict would be for the defendants. The verdict was for the newspaper.