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 4

[miscellaneous paragraphs]

The Melbourne Age has made the biggest thing in the way of an apology to a life assurance company that has probably been ever known in journalism. It consists of a whole closely printed column of statement, counsels' opinion and remarks. The company brought an action against the Age, laying the damages at £100,000, and the Melbourne Herald says that this article was inserted as the price of peace, under the strictest conditions, that the article be inserted verbatim in the top right-hand column of the 9th page of the Age of the 18th January. In the concluding paragraph the Age is made to say:— « This opinion we consider fully establishes the fact that the —— Life Insurance Company's status in this colony is all that can be desired, and it only remains to add that we have been furnished with satisfactory proofs that the company has retained and invested in the colony all the funds created by the business here, and that its record for fair and honorable dealing with policy holders is beyond question. »

At Blenheim a few days ago, two men were summoned by the police for ill-treating a pig in connection with an event at some sports, « catching the greasy pig. » The proceedings were taken consequent upon a paragraph in the Express. The police had subpœnaed Mr Kirby, the editor, who refused to be sworn as a witness for the police, alleging that his usefulness as a pressman would be at an end if he were liable to be placed in the witness box to support police prosecutions; he persistently refused to be sworn. The Bench after a retirement said they had no alternative but a committal. As the committal was being pronounced the police offered to withdraw the case, which the Bench agreed to. Mr Kirby then intimated that he was perfectly willing to make a sworn statement at the request of the Bench if it were distinctly understood he was not examined as a police witness. The Bench consented. The pressman then gave evidence to the effect that his strictures, on which the police had taken action, were not levelled at individuals, for he saw no single act of cruelty, but against a barbarous sport. The case was dismissed.