Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE RECENT LIBEL CASE AT DUNEDIN.

Our readers will recollect that a few days ago the proprietor >of the , Dunedin Evening Star was sued for libel by the Deputy Harbormaster of Port Chalmers for having . inserted a letter which designated the plaintiff as a " Bumble." -The jury found a yerdict for the plaintiff with damages LSO. During the course of the trial the following passage took place :— i Witness under cross-examination— /.Had frequently seen vestries and other public bodies represented in London Puncli and other r' publications as "Bumbledom." When he saw anyone described as •' Bumble" he understood that an action for libel did not lie. Mr Stout : Have you ever 'seen i : the term , •'Bumbledom " applied to our Provincial Council?^ Mr rMacaasey : And very ' properly applied, too. Witness could not say that he ha?* He could not say what meanings might be attached to the word "Bumble "by other people, ; but ' he always understood the word to imply the adjectives he had named as " officious, pettifogging, nical." He thought "a Bumble" meant particularly a very officious person. His Honor Judge Chapman, in the course of his summing up is reported to v have said— and we ' can imagine the inward '•chuckle in which 'the worthy Judge indulged—" There was no doubt whatever i as to the distinction of law, that , persons 'in public; offices are subject to more severe comment on the part of the Press than persons in some private capacity are. If a newspaper chose to drag out' of his privacy a person in some private capacity, with whom the public have no relations: whatever,. and to attack him in respect of I his relations as a father,' husband, or master of servants, and so forth, the law encouraged juries to deal far more severely, with those cases' than with comments .upon, the ofßcial / character of., public officers.' Of course ' if the private character of public pfficers were attacked, it was a different matter. But as far as the public officers were concerned, although formerly there was; some doubt about •the matter, of late, the Judges in England and the Colonies have adopted a distinction in favor of the Press in i this respect. The plaintiff was attacked in his capacity as ! a public officer, and therefore it was that the Jury were invited>to inquire into the question whether jthis was ! fair comment. Now, what was a lib.el ,? A libel in writing, false in itself ! •-■•''•- "i vV-' '„-.'^::o-■ >'"'H i

.which has a tendency, or contained some expression, calculated from its very nature to injure the character and reputation of another, and to bring him into contempt or ridicule with his fellp^creatures. Nothing could be more comprehensive than that. What was imputed to this letter was this :— That characterising the plaintiff as a "Bumble" imputed to him all those odious qualities "wluchTeverybMy who-had-read-' <^OHy§r Twist"--r-and, he supposed nearly everybody hid read' the -book—mustf know to belong to the character, and Bumble has almost Become a'seconda'ry'narae for any official who misbehaves himself in office ; aud he thought that the jury would -have little doubt that merely, calling a man a Bumble would 'necessarily have a tendency to injure him in his reputation, and bring him into contempt with the public : and. those around -him. Then came the question— ls his .conduct: generally- such as to justify his being called a Bumble / Of course, if a person actedlike a Bumble, he would be liable to be called a Bumble, .and it () would.be fair.cpmment. But there was a distinction in 'the matter 'of* fair comment, ,. .that r he should , •.' point? j out .exactly,, and. it was'; ihis': ' If mere were any conduct before the 1 public-^if certain matters of conduct' had been disclosed, and' the writer of the' letter 'proceeded to comment on that well-known conduct, and, to pi bye that this conduct of Captain Orkney's constituted conduct precisely the same as that of Bumble, that he : wa3 in ,fact,,a Bumble^ and a\member'*of Bumbledom— -it might be fair comment."

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA18740204.2.9

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1717, 4 February 1874, Page 2

Word Count
669

THE RECENT LIBEL CASE AT DUNEDIN. Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1717, 4 February 1874, Page 2

THE RECENT LIBEL CASE AT DUNEDIN. Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1717, 4 February 1874, Page 2