THE LIBEL LAW.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 144, 17 December 1908, Page 7

THE LIBEL LAW.

♦ ■ ■ ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. M'LEAN AND SONS v. N.Z. TIMES; ARGUMENT ON A LAW POINT. The action, John M'Lean and Sons, Ltd., v. tho New Zealand Times, Ltd., a claim for £2000 for alleged libel, waa again before the Supreme Court to-day, when his Honour, Mr. Justice Cooper, heard arguments on law points that were raised when the case was before tha court on 28th November. STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND ' DEFENCE. Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Dr. Findlay, K.C., for de. fendants. Plaintiffs' statement of claim sets' out that plaintiffs are contractors and large employers of labour. On Ist August they entered into a contract with the New Zealand Government for the construction of the Otira tunnel. On 23rd October the defendant company printed in its newspaper a report of proceedings at tha Miners' Federation, in which statements were reported which contained reflections on the alleged conditions of work and accommodation provided for workers at i the " Arthur's Pass tunnel, and to which they (the workers) were compelled to submit." Plaintiffs claimed that by tha publication of the statements complained of, defendants intended that the plaintiffs compelled their men to work under conditions which were unduly insanitary, and unnecessarily dangerous to health, t and neglected in' a manner which was unjustifiable and discreditable, to provide any accommodation for their workmen except cottages unfit for humaa habitation, and that the plaintiffs were not such masters as •workmen could or should serve. Plaintiffs affirmed that, ' by reason of the publication, they experienced difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number o£ workmen to enable them to complete theii- contract within tho specified time: A sum of £2000 is accordingly claimed as damages. Defendants,, in their statement, said, • (1) they did not know if the statements complained of were true, and therefor© denied them; (2)>they admitted the publication ; (3) denied that the words pub-< lished were capable of the meaning attributed to them ; (4) that the words were no libej. They contended thati the puWicatiqn was a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the Minors'Federation of New Zealand, and were; published by tho defendants bona fide, and without any malice towards the plaintiffs; (5) tliafc the proceedings were ■ a matter of public interest and concern,;' and (6) the defendants denied that' the plaintiff company had been unable to get sufficient men, and that damage had been suffered in consequence. "A FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT." i The point before the court to-day was an application by plaintiffs to strike out paragraph 4 of the defence, as it was no defence in law. ' Dr. Findlay said it might save time if he intimated that defendants admitted that in New Zealand the defence of a fair and accurate report of the pro- ' coedings of a public meeting was not available to the defendants in an action for libel. , New Zealand had not an Act ' o similar to that in force in England. He did not therefore rely on the defence that the publication was a fair and accurate report of a public meeting. The plea was included to show that there was no malice, but that the publication was merely' a report appearing in) a paper whose function it is to report such proceedings. His Honour: The plea, so far as it alleges a fair and accurate report, is not an answer to the question. Considerable agitation has taken place for an amendment of the law. Dr. Findlay : Queensland and Victoria have adopted an Act in keeping with the English statute, and it does seem unfair that the Press in New Zealand is de- ■ barred from availing itself of a plea which is open to the Press ot England, Queensland, and Victoria. His Honour remarked that this waa outside tho province of the court. Mr. Morison said the court had to deteimme whether the statements of fact were capable of a defamatory meaning and affected plaintiffs in their business. It was also a question for the Judge whether the words ; complained of were statements of fact susceptible of proof or disproof, or whether they were ex- v pressions of opinion on established facts. Whether the statements Were true — if : they were statements of fact — was a question for the jury, and whether the comments were fair, if they wero com-, ments, was also a matter for the jury. The paragraph did not purport to be fair comment. Dr. Findlay admitted the defenca had to prove the facts. , Mr. Morison contended there was no comment in the publication complained of. Fair comment and criticism was one thing, but the adoption of statements made was quite another. A newspaper could comment on any set of facts, but it had to do so at its own risk. His Honour : If fair comment is pleaded the facts must be proved. If they fail to prove the facts they cannot substantiate a plea of fair comment. Mr. Morison contended that if thd truth of the statements on which the alleged comment was based was to be advanced, he was entitled to full particulars of the matters on which defendants proposed to establish a juotifi-i cation. His Honour said the statement of defence did not really set out the defence to the action. It vras inartistically drawn. Ths question whether the words were capable of a defamatory, moaning was one lor the jury. If there was a plea of truth, then there was the issue of the facts and the meaning as well. If the facts were true, then plaintiffs' action fell to the ground. Mr. Morison : That is so, unless ths comment was not fair. Dr. Findlay intimated that he waa prepared to file an amended statement of defence. His Honour said a defence could ba filed which would raise clearly every issue of law and fact. His Honour accepted the Attorney-General's undertaking and the case was adjourned sins die. *

Commenting on the subject of tha missing ballot-papers in Dunediu North, the Christchurch Press says: "This is not the only occasion on which votingpapers havo disappeared at a Dunedin election, for three years ago the papers of the local option poll at one booth vanished equally mysteriously. Mr. Isitt, it will be remembered, produced in public some ballot papers that came into his possession after the last election, to prove that sufficient care was not taken by the officials charged with: the custody of the papers, and thera were also tales of oallot-boxes beinj; lost during the train journey to Wellington. All these incidents tend to shake confidence alike in the secrecy ->f the ballot and tlie accuracy of the oleo tion returns, and the Chief Electoral Officer would do weH to reorganise hia department, and to impress upon his subordinates the necessity for the most rigid and ecrivoulous CAgft."