The Australasian reflects on two cases of libel – one in New Zealand and one in South Australia. It believes that in the former case, a newspaper simply reported on 'the public proceedings of a public body' and subsequently suffered 'heavy damages' and 'still heavier law costs'. In the case of the latter, the Australasian believes the penalty – 'one year's imprisonment with hard labour' – was justified as the proprietor of the South Australian Satirist had perpetrated a 'gross falsehood ... apparently, without the slightest foundation'.
The Australasian reflects on two cases of libel – one in New Zealand and one in South Australia. It believes that in the former case, a newspaper simply reported on 'the public proceedings of a public body' and subsequently suffered 'heavy damages' and 'still heavier law costs'. In the case of the latter, the Australasian believes the penalty – 'one year's imprisonment with hard labour' – was justified as the proprietor of the South Australian Satirist had perpetrated a 'gross falsehood ... apparently, without the slightest foundation'.
