LIBERTY OF PRESS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 29 April 1927, Page 9

LIBERTY OF PRESS.

CHRISTCHURCH LIBEL CASE. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS. By Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, April 25. iho libel suit, Cyrus Williams L'ligineer-.secTetary to the Lyttelton Humour Board) versus the Christchurch “Press" Co., claiming £IOOO in respect of statements contained in certain letters to the editor published in tne ‘ -press’’ newspaper, was continue' 1 to-day. 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, livery citizen, every newspaper, had a right to comment on matters of public interest. In the exercise of that right a newspaper or citizen had a right to criticise and comment on the action of public servants acting in such capacity as that of Mr Williams. Defendant’s contention was that it was not concerned with Mr MiHiums, hut with the Board, the Board’s policy, and the progress of the port and cit.v. The jury must remember that it' was dealing with, on the, one hand, the interest of tho public in regard to iree discussion, and on the other hand, with the right of a private person to claim damages if libelled. His Honour directed the jury in respect of tho two letters, ill respect of which libel was alleged. If they toiind them not defamatory, no question of fair comment or damages would arise. If they found tho letters doiamatory, the, jury must go on to consider whether the comment was fair.

The jury disagreed on the question whether the statements were defaniatory, but agreed that they wore fair comment.' Tlie issues as to damages were therefore left unanswered.

His Honour therefore gave judgment for defendant with costs.