ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 6786, 24 June 1887, Page 3

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

« IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. [PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.J DUNEDIN, June 23. A libel action of an unusual character was heard before Mr Justice Williams today. Mr A. Peterson sued Pilling Bros, proprietors of the Tuctpelea Times, for libel, claiming £300 damages. The statement of claim set forth that the plaintiff, on April 9th, filed a petition of bankruptcy, and on the 16th the defendants published in the Tuapeka Times an article headed "A honest bankrupt." This article was a running comment on the statements made by Peterson at a meeting of his creditors, and which it 'was contended meant that plaintiff had filed from dishonest motives, and that he had dishonestly made preparations for filing, intending to defraud his creditors, and that; the publication was false and malicious. Defendants contended that the article was published in the usual way by the defendants as public journalists as a fair and bond fide comment upon a matter of public interest for the benefit of the public, without any malicious motive. After hearing the evidence, his Honor, in giving judgment, said the defence involved questions of law as well as fact. It would be going too far to say that the publication of everything which took place before the Official Assignee stood on the same footing as the publication of what took place in a Court of Justice. He was not going to decide that point. What was [commented on was not what took place generally, but certain statements made on oath before the Assignee. He held that the publication of the examination on oath of the bankrupt was on the same footing as publication of the examination of a witness before a Court of Justice, and was protected in the same waj, and it followed that fair comment was protected. The article complained of seemed fair and reasonable under the circumstances, as it said that bankrupt out of his own mouth had shown he had not acted honestly. There was no evidence to show that the comment was otherwise than fair (and honest. Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs as per scale of disbursements, and witnesses' expenses. ■ ■ . v .