of the Chief Justieo's remarks on the above case whore Sir .Jamea Prender gast stated that he was entirely against unnecessary actions for libel, whether they be against private in dividuals or newspaper^, of which latter he remarked : " but if a news paper, finding that a mistake has been made, ia willing, and has at once given a fair and honest apology, tbat is a matter which, I think, should be taken very fully into account." In this opinion the general public will unhesitatingly coincide, as it is I certain no good purpose can be served by refusing to accept au apology uuder such circumstances. Newspaper proprietors have been forced into Court to defend libel actions, despite their having acknow ledged their error and expressed regret, which have taken up the valuable time of a large number of persons who niiftht have been more profitably occupied had less tpmper been shown by the aggrieved side. The idea- of some of those who force newspaper proprie tors into Court to defend libel ac tions.is not bo much that of recovery of substantial damages, as saddling tho defendants with excessive costa. Tins no doubt has much to do with the failure of some lawyers to adviso their clients lo settle such cases ami cably, aa tho former no doubt com fort themselves with the reflection that, no matter which way the ver dict goes, they will be paid. Indeed some of the younger moinbers of the bar in this colony have not scrupled to stand in the way of such a common ssnse and inexpensive settlement, but have on the contrary clone everything possible to prevent it. These youth ful Dodson and Foggs are no orna ment to the legal profession, and, it is satisfactory to Imow, soldoui suc ceed in building up a profitable prac tice ; indeed their misdeeds aro too notorious, and fiequently come be fore the Law Instituto.
