THE RECENT DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4863, 30 November 1883, Page 3

THE RECENT DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE.

•» (From the Australasian.) At a time when in onr Oolony there seems* to be a disposition on the part of the Supreme Court Benoh to put down the Press as a public nuieanoe, it is well' to see so able and fair a statement of the rights and duties and obligations of the Press as that oontained in die) charge to the jury by Mr Justioe Williams, of the Supreme Oourt of New Zealand, in ths libel oase of Denniston v. The Otago Daily Timet. It is diffioult in reading that oharga to esoape the belief that the judge must*have had in bis mind the extraordinary opinions reoently expressed in the Suprens Oourt at Sydney, and desired lo mark hie dissent from them as distinctly as possible 7 . It is neoessary to mention that the artiole in question was a refleotion on the conduot and behaviour of a barrister praotlsing. in one of the lower oourts. The judge, deal* ing with the point that the jury might consider tbat the statements in the artiole were not all made ont, said : "If you thought that th* rest of the artiole was a fair comment on what had taken plaoe in the lower oourts, then, although the statements of faot in the artiole had not been proved to be substantially truef and you considered the statements of faot, apart from the question of fair comment, wero not of so very muoh moment, it might be open for you to say, "Well, the aooount is not quite oorreot, but still these statements are fair; and looking at the whole artiole, w» oannot say. it is a libel.' It would be open for you to Uke that view if you ohoose ta do so. Ido not say you ought to do so. Therefore, even if you found that the statements of faot are not substantially true, it wonld not neoessarily follow that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdiot." In other words, even if it is shown that the statements made are not all absolutely and aoourately borne out by the evidenoe, it is still open to the jury to form their opinion on the whole merits of the oase. This dootrine is in exaot aocordance with the reoent rulings of the English Oourts of highest appeal, Bnd is in diametrio opposition to that of a majority of the New South Wales judges. In the latter part of Mr Justioe Williams' oharge he pointed out that barristers are invested with oertain large and wide privileges to enable tktm to do their duty by their client, and because they possess these privileges it is desirable that the publio Press should be per* rait ted to oritioiae the use they make of them. If for the word "barristers" weread ''judges," I and then apply the prinoiples to the aotion of the New South Wales judges in crushing all ProBS criticism by the exorcise of their powers of dealing with " oontempt," we get another light on the subjeot from Mr Justioe Williams' point of view.