The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1887.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3967, 25 June 1887, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1887.

The libel action, Peterson v. Pilling Bros., which has just been tried in Dunedin by Mr Justice Williams, sitting without a jury, is of considerable public interest, as the decision confirms the liberty of the Press in an important particular. It appears that the plaintiff, A. Peterson, had filed a petition of ' bankruptcy, and that a meeting of creditors was held in due course. The bankrupt was examined on oath by the deputy OlEcial Assignee, and a report of the proceedings was published. Subsequently the defendants, who are the owners of the Tuapeka Times, published an article under the heading "An Honest Bankrupt," which commented on the statements made by the bankrupt in his evidence before the deputy Official Assignee. The libel was said to be contained in the article. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants meant that he was dishonest, and had filed from dishonest motives, and that he had dishonestly made preparations for filing, intending to defraud his creditors. It was further alleged i that the publication was false and malicious. The defendants in their statement of defence denied that : the words were published in the sense or meaning alleged, or in any other defamatory or actionable sense or meaning. They said further that the article complained of was published in the usual way by them as public journalists, as a fair and bond fide comment upon a matter of public interest, for the benefit of the public, without any malicious motive. The contentions of counsel for the plaintiff were, firstly, that the libel was so palpable that the only question was what damages ought to be awarded ; and, secondly, that a creditors' meeting before a deputy Official Assignee was not a privileged occa- , sion, as that officer could exclude any of the general public if he liked. Mr Justice Williams appears to have speedily made up his mind that, as the deputy Official Assignee had admitted the reJ porters to the meeting, the newspapers had a right to print a fair report of the . proceedings and also to comment on them. At the trial of the libel action the plaintiff was examined as to the state of his affairs at the time he filed his petition, and also as to the evidence he had given before the deputy Official , Assignee. Other evidence was called • on both sides, and then Mr Justice Williams delivered a judgment of which the following is an abstract. We should say that our knowledge of I the case is derived from the report furnished by the Otago Daily Times of yesterday, and that the judg--1 inent itself is well worth reading in extenso. His Honour said that the ' first question was whether the state- ' clients made upon oath by the plaintiff before the deputy Official Assignee were made on a privileged occasion. He said there was no doubt that the publication ' of proceedings in courts of justice were privileged — that is to say, that if they were published, the publisher was not responsible, even although they might contain libellous matter reflecting upon persons' characters. He continued as follows : — " Now it seems to me that it would be going altogether too far to say that the publication of everything that takes place at a meeting of creditors stands on the same footing aa the publication of proceedings in a court of justice. We know perfectly well that at such meetings the creditors very often lose their tempers and use language which is perhaps altogether uncalled for. lam not going to decide — and I do not think it necessary for the purpose of this case to decide — that meetings of creditors stand on the same footing as the proceedings in a court of justice. What, however, is commented upon here i3 not what took place generally at the meeting of creditors, but certain statements which were made upon oath before the assignee at such a meeting. Now, it seems to me that the examination of a bankrupt before the Official Assignee is in effect a judicial inquiry." His Honor then went very fully into that part of the case, quoting the various sections of the Act which appeared to him to constitute the examination of witnesses before the Official Assignee, or his deputy, a judicial proceeding. He held that the publication of the examination on oath of the bankrupt before the Official Assignee stood on the same footing with respect to publication as the examination of witnesses in an ordinary court of justice. If that were so it followed that a fair comment on the evidence so adduced was protected in the same way as the evidence itself would be protected. As this particular case was still pending, His Honor drew a distinction between statements made by the bankrupt himself, and evidence given by other people about him. The former might be commented on, but comment on the latter would have to be postponed till the matter was no longer siib judice. As to the comment itself, Mr Justice Williams held that it was fair, and he therefore found for the defendants. We are not aware that a case similar to Peterson v. Pilling has ever before been tried in New Zealand, but questions ■with regard to the publication of pro- ■ ceedings in bankruptcy have occasionally arisen incidentally. For in- . stance, when the bankruptcy of W. • Waring Taylor was before the Supreme Court in Wellington two or three years ago, the bankrupt's counsel called the attention of the presiding judge (Mr ! Justice Richmond) to the fact

that the Official Assignee's report, or considerable portions of it, bad already been published by the newspapers, although it had not aa yet been laid before the Court. The report was highly unfavourable to the bankrupt, and it was contended that its premature publication was likely to prejudice his case. The question of libel did not arise, but Mr Justice Richmond intimated with tolerable distinctness that the premature publication by the newspapers was improper, and that, in his opinion, a contempt of court had been committed. He also hinted that the papera bad incurred other risks, probably alluding to libel proceedings which it would be in the power of the bankrupt to institute. It was a remarkable case because the Official Assignee had actually caused his report to be printed in a convenient form, and had entrusted the Registrar of the Supreme Court with copies for sale. From that source the newspapers had obtained their information. It was a part of the complaint made by counsel in Waring Taylor's case that the newspapers had based on the Official Assignee's report leading articles reflecting on the bankrupt's conduct. If that really was so it was no doubt very unfair and directly contrary to the well-known rule of journalism that a case pendingin the courts must not be commented on, But Mr Justice Richmond's remarks did not relate to the articles but to the publication of tho Official Assignee's report. The Press has now obtained from Mr Justice Williams a clear declaration of the law that the evidence given by a bankrupt before the Official Assignee may be treated in exactly the same manner as evidence given in an ordinary court of justice, but His Honor was careful not to commit himself to the opinion that the whole of the proceedings may be reported. For the purposes of the case before him it was not necessary for him to go further than he did, but it would be satisfactory to get a judicial opinion on the whole question. We hold that the Press should be permitted to publish all bankruptcy-proceedings, including the Official Assignee's report, and that the publication should be privileged exactly as the publication of reportß of proceedings in the erdinary law courts is privileged. It is for the public benefit that it should be bo.