The Great Libel Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 200, 25 September 1888, Page 2

The Great Libel Case.

DIBBS V. SYDNEY TELEGRAPH. [FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.]'! Sydney, September 7. Dibbs v. The Daily Telegraph still occupies the attention of the Court. The hearing of the evidence has concluded, and counsel will no doubt conclude their addresses shortly. It has been shown in evidence how a deficit of some hundreds of thousands of pounds was converted into a surplus nearly as large by a lew strokes of the pen, the night before Mr Dibbs mads his Financial Statement. The question for the jury is whether the newspaper was entitled to call this “ criminal concealment ” or whether on the other hand, the proprietors must pay the aggrieved Treasurer £25,000 for having allowed their editor Jo use the language complained of. Very f*iv witnesses were examined—the plaintiff and his late private secretary on one side, Mr Thompson, consulting accountant to tfia Treasurer, Sir Patrick Jennings and one or two more for the defence. But there were quite enough to establish the inevitable direct conflict of evidence. However the verdict may go, the case is a godsend for the lawyers, for whose benefit wealthy litigants may be supposed specially to exist. September 12. Mr Dibbs' action against the Daily Totegraph terminated very unsatisfactorily for both parties. Mr Dibbs got a nominal verdLt of £lOO in place of the substantial sum of £25,000. at which he assessed the damage done to his reputation. The paper is also cast in costs, which cannot amount to much less than £5OOO. It ie stated that ths jury, who were locked up all night, had enti ely failed to agree, and that the verdict which they returned was a compromise between one section which wished to give Mr Dibbs substaoti,! damages, and another which wished to find an unequivocal verdict for defendants. Of course it is of far greater importance to the general welfare that a Troa urer shall furnish to Parliament an accurate statement of the finances of the country than that a newspaper shall confine its comments within the limits of strict propriety. So long, however, as the state of the law offers immense prizes to the legal profession if they can succeed in “ making a man an offend r for a word ” this view is apt to be lost sight of. The Telegraph has since published two outsp >kcn artcles on the case, in one of which it styles Mr Dibbs “ the man of the 10th of December,” which was promptly replied to by another writ from the irate ex Treasurer, this time for £lO,OOO. Public feeling in the case just coded was very much in favor of the Telegraph, which has received, I am told, many expressions of sympathy and offers of pecuniary assistance. Tne latter have been declined, the proprietors being content, it is reported, to maintain the principles from which they have acted, at their own expense. The case at present may be stated in tbs manner familiar to schoolboys as a proportion sum:—as £lOO is to £25,000 so is the. estimate of the jury to that which was made by Mr Dibbs. Surely an ex-Treasurer should, of all men, be more accurate in his forecasts. This is a deficit which is quite worthy to take its place beside previous achievements in that line. However, what Mr Dibbs lacks in exactness be is evidently bent on making up with perseverance, and the result of his next action may tell a different tale.