The N.Z. Herald and Mr Larnach.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 252, 26 January 1889, Page 2

The N.Z. Herald and Mr Larnach.

In the libel action, Larnach v. proprietors o New Zealand Herald, all the available evi deuce as to the basis of information on wbicl the articles were written, and the bona fide. of the writers, was excluded by the Ouurt The whole case turned on the incorrectnesi of the statement that Mr Larnach had left to: Melbourne. The defendants vyere not per milled to bring forward a Minister of th< Crown, a leading Wellington journalist, offi cere of the Press Association, and others, whe were ready to affirm their belief at the time that Mr Larnach had left for Melbourne. Th< Judge said there was no imputation whatevei

that the two writers were animated by anything like spite, or bore any ill wilt towards Mr Larnach. It was obvious enough the articles were written under misapprehension. The New Zealand Herald concludes a very temperate artiole on the recent libel action ae follows : —A Wellington jury has declared that we did wrong, and we bow to the voice of the law. We did what we did believing we were doing it for the public good. It is an unpleasant thing, of course, for a newspaper to be cast in damages, but the injury to the public will be greater, if such a verdict has, as in many oases it may have, the result of cowing honest journalism. The watchdogs of the public may bo irksome sometimes, and sometimes even idly bay th* moon, but as a rule he is not a wise householder that kicks tho watchdog for barking. Tho Auckland Star says:—Tho judgment in feet amounted to this—no matter what a public writer's convictions, no matter how honestly and conscientiously he may discharge his duty, no matter what circumstances conspired to mislead him, nor what readiness he may have displayed to frankly acknowledge his mistake and repair the l n i?7,? one whe “ w “ that ha bad fallen into an error, the law te inexorable, and can ba construed as bolstering up any suit .which may bo instituted from feelings of vindictiveness, for th* sake of public notoriety, or the desire for monetary gain. Happily, jurors are not always so easily led by judical interpretation* of a preposterous condition of tho law.