MERCANTILE REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 231, 23 June 1908, Page 8

MERCANTILE REPORTS.

SYDNEY COMMERCIAL VIEWS.

Despite tho comments of "Tho Times" (says the " Sydney Morning Herald" of June 9), there is still a difference of opinion in Sydney as to the actual significance of the Privy Council's decision in tho caso Macintosh and another, versus Dun and another! As will appear from statement given below, it is held, on tho one hand, that tho decision will practically operate prohibitively, against morcahtilo agencies that have hitherto been regarded as legitimate business enterprises, while on tho other hand tho persons connected with those' institutions are confident that when tho full text of tho judgment is availablo it will show that they have still a legal status.

The case, which has caused intense interest in commercial circles in this State on account ot the widespread ramifications of mercantile agencies, comes back to us from England as tho result of an appeal against the decision, iirst of tjo Supreme Court of this State, then .or tho High Court of Australia. Tho plaintiffs went to the Privy Council, and on Friday last our cables mentioned that tile Judicial Committee of that body had allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the High Court, as well as of the Supreme Court. It did not, however, appear on what grounds tho Privy Council based its finding, and it was, not until yesterday that anything throwing any further light upon the matter 'was received; Then it appeared that the London "Times" Jiad published an article 1 commenting upon the decision. It did not make the position perfectly clear, but appeared to point in the direction of tho Privy Council holding that such reports as are published in trade protection journals are not privileged, and that if.the Question of malice entered into consideration- at all it. was merely as a minor one. That this view is taken by legal men as.well as laymen will be seen from the. following remarks from oho of tho best known barristers in Sydney:— ,

"Judging from what appoared in 'The Times,' ono could gather that the Privy Council has held that a communication mado by a trade protection society in the ordinary course of business is not a privileged one, and in so doing it seems to have overruled both the' decision given by the High Court and that - given by the Supremo Court of this State, for on that point both Courts were in agreement. If that be tho ground of its decision it will strike , a blow at all these trading societies, for they will be unable to publish information with reference to the financial position of traders. It reverts to tho old law as laid down by the lato Mr. Justice Windeyer in 1891 in tho.. case of Foley v. Hall. In that case Mr. Justice Windeyer, in delivering tho judgment of tho Court, 6aid it was ' ridiculous to suppose that a number of persons, by associating thomsclves, together to support a publication of any kind, can tlieroby acquire an immunity in tho publication of libellous matter. As I remarked during the argument, tho law will not recognise a joint stock co-operative slander association, limited. Tho defendants clearly could have no more right to publish slanderous matter about tho privato business concerns of other people in a news sheet of this kind than any other member of the public.' "It seems to me ridiculous that in this 20th century you cannot havo au association for finding out tho financial position of people. For instance, if 1 am carrying on business and send my clerk down to find out the position of someono with whom I am doing business, I have a right, to do so. If I have that right, why should not a number of persons havo tho right to combine together, and instead of each employing ono dork iii his own office to do that work, get someone to do it for all of them. I know that at ono time insurance companies always gave information to each other with regard to people who had been refused by. them, and no question was ever raised with regard to whetlier these were privileged communications or not."