page 80

The Editor and the Mayor.

Difference of opinion as to what constitutes fair comment will always exist, and hence arises the chief uncertainty of the law in regard to libel. That law, in its principle, is clear and just. To falsely asperse any man's character is an offence, and to injure the reputation of another by charges which, though true, are of no public concern, is also a libel, and the injured party has his redress by civil or criminal process, or, if he so choose, by both. When, however, the charges are true, and are made in the cause of public decency, or for the protection of the public interests in any other manner, no offence is recognized. Only by due freedom being allowed to the press in this matter can the public life of a country be kept reasonably pure. With the very strongest case, the patriotic journalist runs a risk, and it is the clear duty of a jury, in the interests of public liberty, not to be too hasty in assuming malice; and where it is evident that public issues are involved, and that the comment, though severe, has been warranted, to uphold the freedom of the press. This is exactly where jurors commonly fail. The journalist may say, as did a noted advocate: « If my case is a sound one, by all means let the judges decide—if it be rotten, give me a jury! »

For some months past there have been occasional collisions between the Mayor of Masterton, Mr Pownall, who is a barrister and solicitor, and the local Daily Times. In social matters, as in politics, they have generally been found on opposite sides. When an infamous house—the first of its kind in the borough—made its appearance, the Times urged the corporation to suppress the nuisance. Attempts in this direction were frowned on by the mayor. He doubted whether such establishments were a nuisance if properly conducted, &c. In the end the efforts of the press, assisted by some of the prominent burgesses, prevailed, and the objectionable institution was closed, much to the relief of a good many decent inhabitants.

Soon after this, a clerk left the service of Mr Pownall to take a public-house at Pahiatua, and he was formally presented with a testimonial, which was published in the Star, the rival paper to the Times. It was thus referred to in the Times of 5th September: « An address presented to Mr R. J. Malcolm which concludes with the following blasphemous sentence is not likely to give Pahiatua people a favorable impression of Masterton morality: 'Finally we commend to thy fatherly goodness all swaggers and those who are afflicted with a great thirst, that you may comfort and relieve them according to their several necessities.—C. A. Pownall, Edward H. Eton, Walter T. Jago.' » On the 6th September Mr Pownall wrote to the editor demanding an apology. The rejoinder appeared in the paper of the 7th. The editor said that Mr Pownall had brought discredit on himself as a barrister, a candidate for parliament, a freemason, and a mayor, and added: « We will not apologise to Charles Aylmer Pownall, but we ask him to apologise to the decent people whom he has shocked by his profanity. » Thereupon Mr Pownall served the newspaper with a writ, claiming £100 damages for libel.

The case was heard in the District Court, Masterton, on the 12th October, before Mr Judge Kettle and a jury. There was no dispute as to any of the facts, the sole question being as to whether the paper had exceeded the limits of fair comment. Plaintiff, under examination, said he had not actually drafted the address. « I laughed and signed it. I thought the last paragraph rather good… I was very much annoyed at it appearing in print at all. » Questioned as to why he was annoyed at a good thing appearing in print with his name attached, he replied: « People would not like all their little private jokes published…. So far from thinking it natural that the address should be published in the Star by Mr Malcolm, I had hot words with the proprietor and editor about the matter. » Asked if the affair had not been made the subject of an inquiry in the Masonic lodge of which he was Master, he declined to answer. « My lips are sealed on that subject. »

In summing up, the judge said that the case was, he believed, the first in the colony in which it had been necessary to decide whether blasphemy had been committed. He would certainly direct that according to the definitions of certain learned judges, the matter in the address came under that definition. There was no doubt in his own mind that it did; at the same time, it was open to the jury to dissent from that opinion. The address was sufficiently public to warrant public criticism, within reasonable and proper bounds. If the jury thought it blasphemous, the strictures made could not be considered other than fair comment. He closed with some remarks on the lack of reverence for holy things which was a common failing of colonial youth.

The following were the issues, with the findings of the jury:—1. ؟Was the paragraph complained of blasphemous?—Yes. 2. ؟Did the plaintiff, when he wrote and printed the alleged libel, believe the said paragraph to be blasphemous?—Yes. 3. ؟Are the statements other than the statement that the said passage is blasphemous in the publication complained of fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interest and upon the conduct of plaintiff?—No. 4. ؟Were the said publications printed and published by defendant without malice and for the public benefit?—No. 5. ؟To what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled?—One shilling. His Honor refused to allow costs.

As to the case itself, comment is superfluous. That the ribald travesty of an ancient and beautiful prayer was in the worst possible taste is clear. The plaintiff, though he laughed and pronounced it good, was very angry when he saw the choice specimen of pot-house humor in print, with his signature attached. Blasphemy is a term difficult to define, and often loosely used. When, as in this case, a man is jestingly addressed in terms customarily reserved for the Almighty, no other English word can adequately describe the offence. The judge emphatically pronounced the effusion blasphemous, and the jury concurred. Such being the case, there was not the shadow of justification for findings 3 and 4, and by no process of logic could they be defended. But juries are not distinguished either for sound logic or enlightened judgment, and no twelve men ever stultified themselves more completely by a contradictory verdict than did those of Masterton. They evidently desired, as a picturesque proverb puts it, to hold with the hare and run with the hounds. Confirming the statement of the Times that their most prominent citizen had put his signature to a blasphemous document, they add that ordinary comment on the fact is libellous and malicious. Not content with this, they assess the damage to Mr Pownall's reputation—which, as his counsel suggested, may involve his defeat in the approaching election contest—at one shilling. His friends can scarcely congratulate him on the result of the action.