THE LATE LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3466, 22 March 1890, Page 2

THE LATE LIBEL CASE.

Outside Opinion. ' From WednesdayV .issue of the Hawkos Bay Herald we take tho {piloting: with- reference, to ithelate; libel case The decision of the jury in thelato libel action'against the Wairarapa Star.was a bad one. The plaintiffs ,wore accused by the news-, paper of having gained certain advantages by deliberate. lying," and sued for damages. The riccusat tiou jwas' either true or false. If ' true, ''to publish it might' have boon : for , the publjo welfare, if - false the publication should have resulted in the owner of the paper being heavily punished. As. has, beeiiyfrepently laid down by Judges, and as is in conformity with both law iindcommon sense, the proprietor of a newspaper baa "no rights which any other citizen does not possess. If A B tells 0 D.'.to his teeth that 'he isa deliberate liar lie has to be prepared for the consequences. If A B's asyertion is due-to insolence 110 one wiil pity him if 0 D retaliates.with a blow, or a kick.' Similarly, if A B possesses money enough to* buy a printing press, and/by the aid of that printing press should' take upon himself to assert that 0 ;D, and his friends and enemies to C D is a deliberate liar, ■no. honorable, man will feel .aught but' pleastiro I '-if A B is severely punished. That faewetiasea in which aiiy man, wlietliei' 1 the owner' of a printing press or hoti'would bo justified in accusing; another of lying or,: worse' 1 is ovident,. because we have to keep gaols for people who do sdch things, but in all cases the onuq of proving justification must lie'iiptfii the aggressor,''ivhetlier that aggressor be the, poorest man in the community,v or one who .by.. the, expenditure of-i money is enabled to print his opinions. Bcoundrelism is by no means- confined to those who cannot write,' nor,-to : those: who, are too poor to buy printing presses, and , the claim .made ; by . some owners,;,of printing •' presses, that.: they may print what another man may not say, ,i 8 at once a menace and an absurdity, Respectalilo' ■ newspapers are at a great disadvantage, because un- ; principledblackmailers, and bullies make suoh a claini, iind lwyo 1 not the liberty whioh is ia j ordinary 1 " dtiiseaj'-' : 'simply.• because 1 ordinary oitens. resent the claini t,f the bullies and \blaoMailer3; / A man who has a grievance may " hive a hall andaddres? meeting ; on the subjeot'ijf..' grievance, and if he knows, of feud may, expose it by publicly, accusing?, the. aytbor ; : of it. That speaker, and ; i all llie-hearers if they choose, may -go into thMttfisafe and reiterate had been- in V the: fear of a prosecution for talking but if onejpf i tfiose; lieavets 'fsbcnala print and offer for. salea report of what ■

said bo does so at the risk f-an action 'at law. This anomaly due to the faotwehave stated, Tho |ublio know that some unprincipled persons use . alleged newspapers as means for. making personal attacks upoft those obnoxious to them, and therefore will not remove thedisabilities which' rest upoii newspapers newspapers he under legaldisabuities, notrestraiii tiie^oufltoilylEeoimoiis 51 fiSJiii 'iaakidg'personar attacke answer is very simple. In the first place, these contemptible prints are usually owned by. men ofstraw,aiid law is dear, It is small satisfaction tofind th at to attenipt to punish th'e owner of a. r ; scurrilous rag of a paper has resulted only in adding financial loss to the original injury, and that to be, successful in a libel action may mean tho escape Of ; the libeller through the Bankruptcy Court and the financial crippling ot tho libelled, Then, again, idany hints and insinuations which, if made orally in a publio place would subject the maker of them to a kicking or a horsewhipping, mv be put into print frequently without any danger. They cannot belogally'conBtrued into Baying what is meant, although they in effect say it, and hence a libel action would fail. They, aro also usually made against respectable men iwho would not 1 soil their hands by jiouching the carcase of .the owner of the print and so he achieves a pitiful safety. Having stated the principle;that the Press (meaning; thereby the owners ofprinting prjkt' in a district or a coiintryV haveSJf more rights with regard. to .making own presses, and aluo having asserted that .there are times when it is justifiable andlaudableto make accusations, orally and. f inr.print, let us return to our assertion, that the decision of tho jury in the Weirarapa Btar/caso' was bad, The defendant admitted that lie bad accused the

plaintiffs of obtamiug advantages by deliberate lying, and pleaded'that the . accusation was; for the public good.. ■ If the accusation were trM iti publi- ■ cation would be for the public good,: but everything, depends upon that "if." If the plaintiffs did, by de- ; liberate lying, gain social, political, or commercial advantages which, . but for that lyini*,- they, would, have got, ji fact be known 'Sida|reatmoril6emce ,'i. to tho community. On the other hand,} if;the defendant falsely accused' plaintiffs of such immoral ; conduct,; he be ecouted. by the' community as being himssT, 1 a liar, and to be heavily the pain and annoyance lie caused the plaintiffs. The jury, whoso 'conduct, compels .one to think of , Dogborry, apparently had, not sense'" enough to make up their own minds.2 ■' They. \ did; not .; find, a j verdict-for* defeiidaiit, and thus clear 1 him'from the suspicion of being a mean and quarrelsome , person delighting in making unjust accusa- ; tions, but neither did they punish him for being in their opinion guilty of what tho plaintiffs tidinplaiiied; of, ji The verdict was the 'assiuine ono of a- ■ 1 fartbiu'g damages for plaintiffs, and .the judge would not certify for costd. : This seems to* imply that the. jury thought that defendant was guilty of wrongly accusing persons of ■immoral .conduct, and that he himself was guilty of ' such conduct itt'making the accusation, :.

but that he ought not tobe punished* and that those who were'wrflngfullyji accused, and, who .appealed to the, • Court'lor redress, should be punished for making such : appeal by. tjjcK. compelled to pay the cost ol litigbbdn ! directly due to the conduct of defendant, The verdict should either ]: have been for defendant with costs against plaintiffs, or else for plaintiffs for. a. substantial f Burn,"/^ith- costs iagainst defendant, 1 There'ViS'every,' appearance of this trial having been : a political one. Wo gather from comments made by printing press owners 'who are " friends of the people," that the real offenco of plaintiffs, and that whioh brought down upon them ; the'unjust accufla.,.. tions of defendant,' was'the fact'that' i" tliey were" haughty Squatters." But if .it has got to this. 1 pass, that: respectable men are to be subjeot to vile attacks, aud to be shut out from redress by the Courts, solely because '; they lmvo sunk their capital in sheep-farming, the sooner the inevitable reaction sets in . thej better. to bo hoped that tho first fruits of it will be a law compelling allpublisliers sum, say £SOO, with the Govornlliit as a security for the cost of contingent actions,: Even a very person would be likely to, curtail Is|P j propensities to attacks on individuals 1 if there were the chince of monetary, | loss tO ; take into account, for he would, not care to bo too'confident of getting together such a peculiar jiiry as tho Wairarapa one.