LIBEL ACTIONS AS A MEANS OF PROFIT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10215, 10 December 1898, Page 6

LIBEL ACTIONS AS A MEANS OF PROFIT.

i We are glad to see that his Honour Mr. v : Justice Denniston, in summing up to the i jury in the case, Mills v Sinclair and > Rogers, took the same view as ourselves ■ in regard to an amendment in the law • of libel, which is very urgently ' i required. Referring to the arrangement r apparently entered into by the parties to > take proceedings against a number of ' , papers one after another, his Honour said , it was unfortunate that the law seemed [ to be in the position that the plaintiff •' i could go for one paper after another, and • that damages in one action were not to l be debarred by the fact that damages ■ in respect of the same matter had a - ... ready been given against another paper. I The law.in New. Zealand is similar to that . which obtained in England before the [ amended Libel Act was passed in 1888. Supposing that a statement sent out by, f a news agency turned out to be unfounded - i and libellous, it might happen _nip -, der the old law in England that' * i the plaintiff would have his righV' v of action against five or six different persons. This right was oftensf, i very much abused. Hungry attorneys, -, i intent on making business which did not'; come to them in the natural course of' ; t things, were on the look-out for cases* i of this kind, and were not slow to egg -. , the plaintiff on to litigation which pro- . mised to bring grist to their mill in the - i shape of costs, in addition to providing the plaintiff with quite a handsome addi- , tion to his income until the list of erring i papers was exhausted., In 1888, however, . , the English Legislature very properly ' r took steps to put a stop, to this abuse of * ' the Courts of Law. The Law of Libel .- Amendment Act, "1888, which was passed ,_- ---in that year, provides (seo. 5) "that it *• \.' shall be competent for a Judge, or tha . * Court, upon any application by or on be- ; ~ half of two or more defendants in actions in respect to the same, or substantially £;;\ the same, libel, to make an order fo.v'V the consolidation of such actions, so that <vf they shall be tried together; and.after ;.-.',, , such order has been mode, and before thef;;.. £ , trial of the actions, the defendants in;//' any new actions instituted in respect tor?'! \ the same libel, shall also be entitled tej| "•) . be joined in a common action. In a .. solidated action under this section, i jury are to assess the whole amount the damages (if any) in one sum., iligte.. is a very'fair and just amendment law, and ought to be _ adopted in Zealand without delay. If a . heen libelled, it is quite right and propa||pL that he should be afforded an j . to clear his character in a Court of d t and that he /should receive J { damages for the injury he has M 1 , It is not right, however, that under. | cover of vindicating, his character,„ J lu>j[> j should ally himself with speculative I , neys, or allow himself to become J theirv;|\ tool, in order to trayde upon his | character in the hope of making } thing out of it both for himself and" . -U ?>a \>\Ci :