Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Typo: A Monthly Newspaper and Literary Review, Volume 3

Libel Actions

page 4

Libel Actions.

The event of the past month has been the libel action of Larnach against the Auckland Herald, in which the defendants were fined £500, and were further cast in costs amounting probably to an equal sum. This was a more flagrant injustice even than the case of the Nelson Mail, recorded last month; but the fault in this instance lay not with the law of libel, but with the stupidity or prejudice— possibly both—of a jury. There was one point in common in both cases, in each instance to the extreme disadvantage and great cost of the unlucky newspaper. The ordinary and reasonable rule that a matter should be judged where the alleged offence was committed, was set aside. The Nelson Mail with its witnesses was dragged over to Blenheim, where the friends and partizans of the plaintiff were in great force; and the Auckland Herald case was tried nearly five hundred miles away, in Wellington—the most hostile locality in the colony. In the Nelson case, the plaintiff appears to have been actually libelled, though not by the defendant. In the Auckland case there was not (except in the most extreme technical sense), any libel at all. We could, if we chose, almost fill this paper with the indignant comments of the press on this scandalous case. In addressing the jury, Mr Justice Richmond said: « Society could hardly be held together if any one who possessed some money and types to start a newspaper could publish under the plea of public interest any calumny on a person who took part in public affairs. » If his Honor had known anything of the low-class papers of the colony, he would never have made this remark, which was singularly impertinent to the case before him. The state of things which he treated as imaginary is exactly what exists, and is largely owing to the present libel law and the vagaries of good men and true like the twelve humorists of the Empire City. The Wellington Press justly remarks that such verdicts place respectable papers, conducted by men of substance, in peril every day, and leave the liberty of public criticism only to disreputable prints, in the hands of men who are not worth powder and shot. During the past two years there have been published many wilful, cruel, and gross libels—some against gentlemen in high positions, others, more cowardly still, affecting private reputation. Some of these have been very notorious, and have aroused public indignation, but not one of them has come before the Courts. The offenders presumed upon their own insignificance and impecuniosity, and on the magnanimity of their victims. Ten or twelve civil actions were tried, only three successful; but all exceedingly costly to the journals concerned. Here is a summary of the working of the libel law in two years. One criminal case—an editor, attacking a corrupt public body, inserts a stupid squib against the secretary. Six months' sentence; business ruined; dies in three months, leaving widow and family. Civil cases: (1) solicitor against newspaper, puts paper to over £200 expense; knows he hasn't a leg to stand on; withdraws at the last moment—doubtless well satisfied. (2) travelling actors travel to South Sea Islands leaving accounts unpaid, newspaper notes the fact, press agent sends item by wire. Leading actor comes back, institutes two actions for £1000 each; recovers £150 from newspaper and £200 from press association. (3) fraudulent bankrupt is deeply hurt by unkind comments of newspaper man; claims £300; gets nothing; (4) professional man, misbehaving himself, is caned, and takes his assailant before R.M. Court; claims £50,000 of paper for reporting magistrate's remarks; gets nothing. (5) rival editors attack each other in their respective papers; one who comes off second-best claims £300; gets £25. (6) married couple addicted to drink; wife takes poison in evening; child tells father, who takes no action; wife found dead in morning; inquest; newspaper comments; widower claims £1000; loses case; mortgages property to lawyers to raise funds for second action, and files schedule; claims another £1000; again unsuccessful. (7) Justices squabble on the bench; clerk of court gets mixed up in affair; newspaper comments; clerk claims £200, and does not get it. (8) privileged members of public body make statements regarding officer which cannot be substantiated; aggrieved party claims £1000 of newspaper reporting board-meeting, and recovers £100. One or two cases too trivial to note, complete the wretched list. In Mr Larnach's case, the so-called libel arose out of a statement made in the House by Mr Hobbs, a fellow-member, and the facts, as represented by him, were very severely commented on by the Herald. Mr Hobbs, it turned out, was not correct in certain particulars in no way material to the issue. Like an honorable man, he apologized, and received in return a grossly insolent telegram, which Mr Larnach contrived to have read in the House. The proprietors of the Herald also apologized—an action perhaps less prudent than highminded; for the unlucky apology, which was acknowledged by Mr Larnach in his own peculiar style, appears to have prejudiced their case. It was a well-known fact—though not allowed as evidence—that the plaintiff had, as was stated, made all arrangements to leave New Zealand, and had taken his passage to Melbourne. He made no secret of his reasons for departure—the colony, where he had gained much of his wealth in trade, was depressed, and Melbourne, where money was plentiful, and speculation rampant, was a more inviting field for his enterprise. The fortuitous and quite irrelevant circumstance of the illness of a member of his family—made the most of by a smart lawyer—appears to have completely diverted the jury from the real issues, and there may have been even more obscure causes for their extraordinary verdict. The plaintiff is the man who comes worst out of the whole affair; and not the least unseemly part of the business was his ostentatious gift, while legal proceedings were pending, of his « honorarium » to an influential religious sect.