The Chronicle. PUBLISHED DAILY LEVIN. TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1912. THE LAW OF LIBEL AND THE COST OF LIVING.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 6 August 1912, Page 2

The Chronicle. PUBLISHED DAILY LEVIN. TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1912. THE LAW OF LIBEL AND THE COST OF LIVING.

Nkwsi'al'khs arc hampered (in choir duty to flu , public and also in their desire to chronicle news as fully jus it should bo set out) by tho retard- ' in:' operations of the law of hliol. X<> privilege of publk-ation exists in Xow Zealand <'xeo{)t in regard to i'l) Parliamentary proceedings: (2) j public bearings of cases brought, in j courts of law: and (,i) ''proceedings j of local authorities mid all Ivodies j of persons constituted under the provisions of any Act for the discharge of any public functions, and of committees of such local authorities or bodies." Tbe third section i< a recent enlargement of newspapers' privileges, its origin 'being the. much-abused "Law of T.ilieJ Ainendiiieiit Act, 101O.' , But there :ir<> many disabilities remaining. One of these is the absence of privilege Tor ''fair" reporting of public proceedings. Korne newspapers contend that sufficient care, is oxer-i-i.sod when "accurate"' reporting in but wo. do not ho l<l with that; there should discretion shown. For in si-nice, someone might cry out in a ciMH-ii that. .\fr Hiatus Jived by systematic rolibery. To record that allegation in print- on tbe unsupported a.n<l unsubstantiated stateniont of an unascertained person — would bo grossly unfair and unjust. The present restriction of prospective libel actions certainly .should continue to safeguard tbe public from such risks of unfairness. But the position is different where absolute proofs are forthcoming that tho public is being exploit <*1 an<l robbed. Such an instancv". was siren specifically and unequivocally ■iK'fore the Cost of Living Commission at Wellington, when two out of three samples of Wellington butter (bought in tbe open market and tested before the Commission by a Government official) w<?re proved to be under weight. Three separate sets of candles, one tin of popper, one tin of baking powder, one tin of jam, one packet of arrowroot, and «no tin of biscuits all were proved to ho below their reputed weights. The names and brands of the various goods will .hi? d% printed in the I'ulky tome,'; of evidence, but who amongst the public will see them there,? Not wore tliaw ten in each ton thousand of the people.. The places in which should be printed the, namp.s and trade signs of the merchants and manufacturers who defraud the public in ibis man- ' nor are .the columns of the. news- ■ papers. But not one newspaper k\s dared to do ,«o. We have the '< names of the, manufacturers, and ' the brands of the goods, before us < a s we write, but "W daro not pub- 7 linh them, either. To us the pub- I < Uc interests are of importance, and the references above printoxl may .serve io put them upon their guard. < hut to bo more specific would lie to ' become unduly rash in the face of * the present law of libel. COMMERCIAL PROBLEMS. . s The making of cheques and the t limits of liabilities are subjects re- J" garding which all business men are '; interested, and any moot points con- " nectod. therewith cannot be ilium- o inated too frequently. A point de- o liated at some length recently is one f< concerning liability for the loss of o a cheque which is fraudulently nego- a tiated by a third party. Ifc seems si to he clearly established that until ci ■the creditor is actually paid tho w debt is not actually discharged; tl 'A\-herefore it should he felt a« being sc iuciimbont tiiKin all persons trans- n;

mitt ing cheques through the post to take double precaution of making cheques payable only "to order," and of marking them ''not negotiable." The general matter is dealt with in a recent issue of Tho Accountant's Magazine, which sums up the case as follows:—"When acliequo goes astray and happens to get cashed by a. fraudulent third party, on whom does the loss fall,— on the sondor of the cheque, that h?, on the debtor, who if the loss falls on him will ha.vo to pay over again, or on tho person to whom the chequo was s«>nt, that is, the creditor? The law is that it (b the debtor's duty to go to the creditor and pay his dobt. If the debtor chooses to make payment by way of a remittance by post, that is all right provided likremittance, reaches the creditor, but if it does not, then that is a risk lie has taken and any loss falls on him. Hut if the creditor has requested :i remittance T>y post, the result is different he fc then considered as having taken the risk on himself. fn the case of Thairwall v. The Great Northern Railway Company, decided last, year, a dividend warrant was lost in the- post. it had boen sent to tho plaintiff in pursuance of n. resolution that dividends should be posted passed at a meeting to which ho had beon invited. Tt was held that he had impliedly requested that the warrnni, be sent hy post, and thei-efore the loss was hiV-th'o company wi>re nnt bound to issue a .second warrant. But in Macrohert v. Tho Gla.sgou , f'orjwration. just decided in tlie Glasgow Sheriff Court, tho lost warrant there in question had just been posted as usual, and it was found thai this was not equivalent to payment, the addressee not having requested payment in that way. The Corporation were ordered to pay again."