PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 30 April 1927, Page 5

PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

THE RIGHT OF CRITICISM

LIBEL ACTION AGAINST NEWS-

PAPER FAILS

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) ' CHRISTCHURCH, April 28. The libel suit ot' Cyrus Williams, en-gineer-secretary to the Lyttelton Harbour Board, against the Christchurch Press Co., claiming £IOOO in respect oil statements contained in certain, letters to the editor published in the Press newspaper, was heard to-day. criticised certain works carried out in Lyttelton Harbour, and plaintiff alleged that, as. these works were carried out under his advice and direction, the criticism, which ho alleged was unfair, was defamatory and damaging to him. , The defence was in effect that the criticism in the letters was not defamatory, and, further, that they were fair comment on matters of public interest. His Honour, summing up, said the rules in regard to liability for libel were different where matters of public interest were discussed, and where no question of public interest arose. Every citizen and every newspaper had the right to comment on matters of public interest, and in the exercise of that right a newspaper or a citizen had a right to criticise and comment .on the action of public servants acting in such capacity as that of Williams. There was good ground for saying that a man was not bound to prove his opinions; it would place an impossible burden on him to make him do so.

In the present case, defendant’s contention was that the criticism was not concerned with Williams, but with the Board’s policy and the progress of the port and city. The jury must remember that it was dealing with, on the one hand, the interest of the public in regard to free discussion, and, on the other hand, the right of a private person to claim damages if he were libelled. He directed the jury, concerning two letters in respect of which libel was alleged, that if they found them not defamatory, no question of fair comment or damages need arise. If tjiey found the letters defamatory the jury must go on to consider whether the comment was fair.

The jury disagreed on the question whether the statements were • defamatory, but agreed that they were fair comment, and issues as to damages were therefore left unanswered.

His Honour gave judgment for defendant company with costs.