PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19827, 29 April 1927, Page 8

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

THE RIGHT OF CRITICISM LIBEL ACTION AGAINST NEWSPAPER FAILS. [Ter PreB« Association.] CHRISTCHURCH April 28. The libel suit of Gyrus Williams, en-gineer-secretary to the Lyttelton Harbour Board against the Christchurch Press Co., claiming £lO9O in respect of statements contained in certain letters to the editor published in the Press newspaper was heard to-day. The letters criticised certain works carried out in Lyttelton Harbour, land plaintiff alleged that as these works were carried out under his advice and direction. the criticism, which he alleged was unfair, was defamatory and damaging to him.

The defence was in effect that the criticism in the letter were not defamlatory and further that they were fair comment, on matters of public interest. His Honor, summing up, said the in regard to liability for libel were different where matters of public interest were discussed, and where no question of public interest arose. Every Citizen and every newspaper had the right to comment on matters of public interest, and in the exercise of that right a newspaper or a citizen had a right to criticise and comment on the taction of public servants acting in such ca pacity as that of Williams. There was good ground for saying that a man was not bound to prove his opinions; it would place an impossible burden on him to make him do so.

Tn the present ease, defendant’s contention whs that the criticism was not concerned with Williams, but with the Board’s policy and the progress of the port and city. The .jury must remember that it was dealing with, on the one hand, the interest of the public in regard to free discussion, and on the other hand the right of a private person to claim damages if he were libelled. He directed the jurv, concerning two letters in respect of which libel was alleged, that, if they found them not defhmatorv, no question of fair comment nr damages need arise. If they found the letters defamatory th? jury must go on tn consider whether the comment was fair.

The jury disagreed on the question whether the statements wore defamatory. but agreed that they were fair comment, and issues as to damages were therefore left rrnanswerea. His Honor give judgment for defend'ant companv with costs.