THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 71, 7 November 1911, Page 7

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

o RESPONSIBILITY OF NEWSPAPERS. At tho recent sitting of the Country Press Conference hold in Sydney. Mr R. Clive Teoce, LL.B., delivered an address on tho law of libel. Ho began by saying that there was defamation of two kinds—oral, which was slander; written, winch was libel. I'he many phases of defamation and libel were described in iefcad. To hold a person no to ridicule or con'.eqipt brought the offender within tho pale of the' law. A communication that might pass between two persons concerning another would not lie a matter for civil action if it were confined to those two persons, but whan it was communicated to a third, then the person so communicating would lie liable. The latter act constituted publication. There .were cases in which persons who were unconscious instruments, could not be held liable for damage's, but tho newspaper proprietor who might he away in England and have a substitute directing his newspaper here, would he liable if that substitute came within the reach of the law, although tire proprietor knew, nothing of the defamatory article before publication. Sometimes it occurred that a man might use a seemingly complimentary term to a person, and yet he guilty of defamation. Any member of a class, if referred to in a hurtful way, could sue for reparation if he could prove that tho words used against that class had a prejudicial, effect upon him, although the person alleging the grievance was totally unknown to tho writer . Speaking of fair comment, Mr Toece said that a person who made a statement actuated by improper motives would not be making fair comment. It often happened that the attitude of a defendant in the box, or the demeanor of defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff, was taken notice of by the jury and charged to the account of the defendant. “Therefore,” said Mr Tesce, “maintain an attitude of kindliness towards the plaintiff, and restrain your feelings, and love your enemies for the time being.” Misstatements about a person could not by any means be regarded as fair comment. For a newspaper to lie entitled to defend on the-ground of fair comment, the matter' published must be in the public interest—comments on municipal management, control of local hospitals, and the like; but if two persons had a quarrel, and the newspaper man took to writing up one side or the other, that could not be regarded in the light of public interest. In the law of defamation there was the defence of privilege in connection with statements made by members of Parliament in the' House, judges of the Courts, and v, imosses in Court. On the plea of qualifying privilege a newspaper man may say that he published a matter which was regarded as defamatory in t.io interests of the public with out any illwill, and in the ordinary way m which he published his new spacer. But the plaintiff might come along and rebut that statement by saying that the newspaper proprietor bore him ill-will. Having dealt with other phases of defamation and libel, Mr Teece said it was a relic of the old days that a newspaper proprietor against whom a verdict was given for slander should be liable to have Ins plant sei/.ed and sold to pay the costs and verdict, and if lie was then unable to nay lie had to go to gaol, while tho debtor, who was imprisoned as such, could obtain release upon going bankrupt. Not so with the newspaper man. He had to remain in prison for twelve months, whether bankrupt nr not. And, again, the newspaper plant was the only class of asset upon which a person could not realise in the event of being in monetary distress.