In summing up Mr, Harris again urged that the article was not libellous and could not possibly have caused feelings of contempt, hatred or ridicule towards the plaintiffs and certainly no damage had been! suffered, which went very largely 10! show that the plaintiffs had not been Hibelled. There was no question! there was a mis-statement, but there' was no right of action for a mi statement as such. Very much more must be proved—that it was published with actual malice and had caused actual damage. It wns: Suggested that after the "China Press" article on the Sunday the defendants could have published an apology, but, said Harris, leave it'to you to de was compatible with the di any newspaper to take any neties of such an article. It was for the 'China Press' to point out the mistake on the following day and if in any sense the article was libellous expression of regret and apology would have been made."
Mr. Wing said the plaintiffs never had regarded the mistakes an innocent one and therefore it not incumbent on them to ask for an apology. If the defendants' article was not calculated to inspire hatred and contempt, he confessed he would have difficulty in conceiving of one that would, The Judge's Summing-up The Judge, in addressing the said that he was against Mr. Harris on the suggestion that this was a case in which it could be held that 8 corporation could not be libelled. Neither did he feel that he should withdraw the ease from the jury and say that it was not possible for them to find that the words complained of could bear the interpretation put upon them by the plainti There was one exception. The mere far of putting at the end of the article the statement that Mr. A. S.
Allan appeared for the plaintiffs was not capable of bearing the meaning' ited without permission. ith that portion from the His Lordship then advised the jury that they had to consider the intorpretation the ordinary man in the street would put upon the "North-China Daily "article quoted well-known legal tests to such consideration, emp! ug that where a phrase was capable of both a proper and an improper meaning they had no righ the improper and proper meaning. He was not inc necessarily to accept suggestion that "substantial claim™ had quite thY meaning his clients put upon it, although perhaps they were perfectly satisfied, There no doubt the sting, if he might say 0, occurred in the last paragraph of the article and if it had not been for that it would have been very dificult for the plaintitts to make out a case, and if it had not been for that paragraph it would have been his duty to say that all the paragraphs up to it were not able of bearings a libellous meaning. That was where Mr, Norman sug gested that advantage was taken of his being at a distance, He asked the jury to consider whether thers was any real malice or a perfectly innocent publication of news of a ease about to appear in the Ameri can Court, There had been evidence of malice whatsoever, but plaintiffs had stood by their legal right that if there was a libel malice was resumed. There was cvidenes that there was no malicious intent.
After an absence of a few minutes, the jury returned to ask:—"Is the 'North-China' legally entitled publish verbatim reports of petitions in the American Court?"
The Judge said the question was difficult to answer, whilst Mr, Wing said they did it at their own risk and Mr. Harris said he did not claim. there was a privilege, but ti practice differed from that in Eng Courts and petitions, once filed, were open to any member of the public to inspect. The Judge added that what might not vellous when stated by some privileged person could be libellous if repeated by a thind party.
The jury retired again for a few minutes and then returned with a verdict for the defendants.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.