sterling reputation, carefully cultivated and jealously guarded, over
several decades. The 1st plaintiff is a newspaper of renown, known
for its courage in times of adversity. Yet the publication of a
newspaper is very much a business, and in the course of conducting
its affairs, there may be, periodically, business arrangements or
transactions. It is one thing to make and publish fair reportage on
these transactions. It is quite another to not only suggest, but to
make accusatory statements, that that business is being conducted,
or those business transactions executed, in a cloak-and-dagger
manner, with the intention of deceiving other stakeholders in the
business and of circumventing the law. A statement of that type is
per se defamatory. It can only be defended by positive evidence that
it is true. If it is not, then damages must follow. What did the
defendants do? Having published the article in question, and then,
when asked to recant or at least to print the plaintiffs’ denial, they
maintained that what was said in the article was true, and was
verified. This is for the defendants to show. Far from doing
anything of the sort, they have stayed away from these proceedings,
despite every opportunity afforded to them. The plaintiffs have
therefore had to file this suit. They have been put to considerable
legal expenses and costs.
