THE LAW OF LIBEL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4258, 12 November 1874, Page 3

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

The following from the Wanganui Chronicle, November 9, will still further illustrate the risks of newspaper management under' the existing law of libel: — The recent- case of Gilfoy v. the late proprietors of the Chronicle, which was an action for an alleged libel founded upon a newspaper report of certain proceedings in a Resident Magistrate’s Court, presents two or three points of much interest to both journalists and the .public. The action was to have been tried at the civil sittings of the Supreme Court just closed, but was permitted to be withdrawn, the, defendants, we believe, consenting to this course in consequence of the facts elicited in the cross-examination of Gilfoy, during the trial of Mr. Danahyupon the charge of larceny preferred against him by Gilfoy, and upon which he was acquitted. From these facts the defendants inferred that even supposing they obtained a verdict in their favor, Gilfoy would be unable to pay the costs. The inference may have been quite wrong, and its justice must be left to the judgment, of those who heard that cross-examination, or read the published report of it. Equally may the defendants have, been mistaken in thinking it likely they would get a verdict. But whatever may have been the intrinsic merits of this particular case, it suggests how easily a journalist, in the discharge of Ids ordinary duty, may be entrapped into a lawsuit, from which it is impossible for him to escape without much personal annoyance and expense, no matter whether the verdict of the jury is for or against him. As the’law stands, a man of straw, without means or home, or kithor kin in the country to bind him to it, can, if he see a report of the proceedings in a Resident Magistrate’s Court in which his name is unfavorably mentioned, bring an action for damages against the proprietors of the newspaper with impunity. The report may be a faithful record of what took place ; its publication may even turn out to be legally justifiable ; there may be an utter absence of malice on the part of the publisher's ; yet the action can be instituted with practical safety to the plaintiff, and with the chance that, by some eccentricity of the jury, he may get a certain amount of damages, not large enough to cause the verdict to be upset by subsequent proceedings, but a sum worth his pocketing, and by means of costs, is made a very heavy penalty upon the defendants. Supposing the verdict to be in the defendants’favor, they find themselves in the pleasing predicament of having to recover their costs from a man withoirt money or aught to embarrass his movements, and who, if there is any probability of arrest, can abscond, without trouble, to another colony. Individuals who are not in the remotest degree connected with the case likewise suffer, through being compelled to serve on the jury, which service frequently entails a far greater loss upon the jurors than the small honorarium which they are paid. What hardship is often inflicted upon innocent persons by jury service is illustrated in Gilfoy’s case, where one gentleman, living in the country, having been summoned as a special juror, a direct pecuniary loss of about £2O was thus sustained by himself and a third party through his compulsory attendance on the Court, notwithstanding the case was never called on for trial. The more necessary, therefore, does it become to prevent the machinery of the Court being abused by means of vexatious actions.