A JUDGE ON PRESS LIBELS.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1474, 24 November 1884, Page 2

A JUDGE ON PRESS LIBELS.

Mr Justice Lines, in sum n\ \<r .jn the evidence in tiio action for damans i for alleged libel — Davis v. Fun-fax" \ said he had no hesitation in telling tb.o jury that the matters which wcr« spoken of, alluded to, and discuss ;d 1 in the two paiagmplis hyfor^ the Court , were of public interest, npon which not only the Press had a right to comment, bnt every member of the ; coinmunify had an eqwil right. They ! all knew and acknowledged gratefully I that the Piess, when properly ( ;onj ducted, was an enormous and an in ! calculable benefit to the well b«rij» of ! a comm unity. They lived in ti~neß ! row when' uobod}' in his senses ever . dreamed of controverting that posi- ! tion. It was not easy to estimate thi? j advantage which society derives from ! a properly conducted Press, nor j was it easy to estimate the obligations j ofgratitudennderwhieh thecommunit.y '. labored to those, who conducted tlm | Press. The matter at present before i the Court was o c of public interest, J which would justify any writer in the . public Press in discussing ful'y and i freely the acts and conduct of the p°rj sons concerned. So long a* the. truth . was adhered to — and by truth, h» i meant the substantial I. road truth, not of necessity accuracy in any little matter of detail — and so lonr; as the . w.iter confined himself to fair and I reasonable comment — comment fairly j and legitimately arising out of £ict<? — | the writer or publisher wou'd not be \ subject to nn action for lilipl — no • matter how severe the animadversion or how unqualified the condemnation. At the same time th?v must bear this in mind, that untruthful and unfounded ; statements must not bo made against j individuals ;and if they were made the j writer was responsible. Tlie question ■ in this instance, was whether o>' not : the article, was justified ; were. th« ! paragraphs a fair, substantial, and j truthful account or the circumstances j of the case, or did they transgress the | bounds of fair and legitimate comj meut ? If the paratjraps did do so, ! the plaintiff was entitled to damH_ r e<> : ; but if they did not, the verdict would ihe for the defendants. Thw verdict j was for the newspaper.