THE LIBEL LAWS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 489, 5 August 1890, Page 2

THE LIBEL LAWS.

The Bill now before Parliament, for the amending of the law of libel, is a very important one for the protection of the public interest, as well as of private concern to the proprietors of newspapers. It is quite a common thing for a person who feels aggrieved at comments however just to threaten to take libel proceedings against the journal making them. The most trivial pretexts are sometimes employed to enable an action to be instituted to harass the proprietor of a journal that hasdone no more than is fair and necessary in the public interest. Knowing the danger of laying themselves open to be worried in this way experienced writers become very cautious, and often deem it necessary to leave unsaid much that in the ordinary course of things ought fairly to be said.

When actions are brought by men from whom there is a chance of recovering a portion of the law expenses, there is not so much to complain of, excepting that the law is a very arbitrary one ; but when “ men of straw ” can make shot actions just to heap law expenses upon a newspaper the position is shamefull}; unfair. A case that has recently occurred in Wellington gives a striking example of what newspapers have to contend with. A footballer named Roberts (had been charged with misconduct in the direction of arranging to receive money for his services—an arrangement which was subsequently partially admitted. Roberts issued a writ against the Post, but soon found that there was no ground to sustain the action upon, and he went bankrupt, one item being .£3B, his share of the costs to which the newspaper had been put before the action was withdrawn; The Post has an article dealing very fairly with the matter, its own words bling 1—

“A more impudent action than theone now referred to has perhaps rarely been brought, but even with a full knowledge of the character of the action, and the absolute impecunious position of the plaintiff, it was necessary to plead, collect evidence, and make every preparation for the trial of the case. All this involved expense. Of course we knew that the matter could be settled at a very much smaller cost than the case could be decided, but to have given a penny to settle such a case would have involved a sacrifice of principle, and have encouraged other similar proceedings. So every preparation had to be made for trial, and then almost at the last moment the plaintiff discontinued his proceedings, and we were left to pay our own costs. The proportion of these legally chargeable to the plaintiff, was .£3B, but as anyone acquainted with law proceedings well knows, the actual expenses, as between solicitor and client, are considerably larger. _ Even the £3B is a total loss, as the plaintiff seeks the Bankruptcy Court to wipe it off. Now this is a mild but fairly typical case of abuse of the law of libel which is of constant recurrence. There is scarcely a paper of any standing in this colony which has not been victimised in this manner. No ground is too absurd on which to base a threat of action for libel, unless certain reparation or compensation for the entirely imaginary injury is made to avoid further trouble. Wherever the case stops after that, the result to the defendant is a sure loss. The case may be dropped, it may be fought and won, but in no event does the defendant stand a chance of getting back a penny of the expense he is put to. The man of straw plaintiff flops into the Bankrupcy Court the moment he is hit. We write from a bitter and expensive experience, and other newspaper proprietors have suffered similarly. What is asked of the Legislature is protection againt vexatious or blackmailing libel actions by giving the Judges power in certain cases, to order the plaintiff to give security for costs before an action is allowed to proceed. The objection urged to this is that it would prevent a poor man, who really had been libelled, bringing an action to vindicate himself and punish his maligner. Nothing of that kind is desired. We have no wish to see the liability of a newspaper for any real injury it may inflict, intentionally or accidentally, on any man, decreased in the slightest degree. Still less would we have his full right to legal remedy for any real wrong denied to any man on account of his poverty, but no risk of anything of this kind need be incurred in effectually putting a stop to vexatious or blackmailing actions. A Judge of the Supreme Court should have power to call on a plaintiff to show that the cause of action is a reasonable and legitimate one, and such as ex parte renders it a suitable one for the consideration of a jury. Otherwise leave to proceed should only be given on security being found for the costs of the other side. Such a provision would cause no hardship to anyone, and it would nip in the bud a great number ol very discreditable actions. We trust members when they have the Libel Bill before them will bear in mind the facts to which we have now drawn attention, and will see that some provision of the character suggested is embodied in the measure.”