Wairarapa Daily Times. [ESTABLISHED 1878.] WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1894. THE BELL LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4641, 7 February 1894, Page 2

Wairarapa Daily Times. [ESTABLISHED 1878.] WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1894. THE BELL LIBEL CASE.

SKCOND EuITION.

We are not amongst those wjio think more highly of Mr H. D. Bell on nocount of the proceedings vljicl) ho bas recently taken against n Wellington publication known as Fair Play. At a timo when political j feeling ran high Fair Hay formed and expressed an opinion as to Mr Bell's personal Imbiu, which has been proved to be erroneous, but it whs rumoured that when Fair Play diacQvpied'tbnt ft |)ad made an trior, it was liojtb to admit its fault and to gprrept ft. This in our .opinion would bavo bpfin ijie proper way ol terminating an incident whioli was specially liable to occur during the course of a oan'.ested-electiou. Mr J}e)J it was paid did pot care to he a party (p a seftletpit of £his kipd and evoked |l|e lay by iji§tlt|iting a p>o< seoutiou for iibcl. No gne kfiows better than a lawyer what nn inhumane weapon a libel prosecution is, and at what cost it may be made to pimj.sh an adversary. We .can understand p. lawyer using this weupop when urged to do so by, pdflo behalf of, a client, but it is not a chivalrous or a noble thing for hi® to use it on his own behalf as a weapon of defence, No ono knows better than a lawyer tliat the libel law as it Btands in ftew Zealand bears heavily against tlie press and that for this reason it ought not (o be to except as a lust remedy, Mr BeJI, haying set the. law in motion, was entitled Ifii'fjje' verdict which he obtained, viz., damages one pound. Wo do not believe that the libel itself did, under tho citoumatanpe? of tbe case, more, than a trifling injury t/j a tjmnso well-known, both publicly an,a prfvalelyj m himself; nnr do w.e believe fiat if if, hatj. been promptly retracted it would have doge Jiioj any barm at all,' As a pub}io man tyr J3el} would stand higher if b,e weyo sproewhat fess giijyp to jjriticiag), He ljp give)) biinseif jn infinity of and trouble over a WBta'j#h )ie pouljJ have well afforded to laugh 9t or |rp»fc with indifference. Fair flwj hap probably been punished by having to p»y a l)ig, big lawyer's bill, but per contra it gels the best advertisement by being prosecuted by a man of Mr Bell's standing, as well aa obtaining some Hympathy, and possibly material; help fros thp party in the Empire! City which it js to represent. Men of high character and rarely bring libel notion?, they rather disdiin the uiserabls weopons that meaner mortals use, and Mr Bell Qught to l}s?e kno)V|i.tl]iß.' Two reasons should hatjO him: first, that his back was broad enough to stand tbe attack; and, second, that as a lawyer he should not foster litigation by placing lii|nsejf in the position of a cliept. . J?ew candidates florae to the top of a poll without one or two nasty things being said about them. We thii)l( Mr Bell might bave forborne in this instance. We do not remember whether Fair Play published bis portrait. If it did he might have bad a substantial grievance against that journal, but at filec.tjpn titjqo anything less than that might iiayji bean fogiven,