Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. Page 7 If in such cases such mention of a magazine article could not constitute a republishing of a defamatory comment contained in the article, then what occurred here was even more remote as a reference was made to a website that contained all manner of participants’ comments including the Bopeep comment. [10] The appellant argues, making special reference to the case of Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A), that the respondent Federation should have been found liable for referring recipients of the Network newsletter to the website where the offensive comments could be found. The Hird case concerned an application for a new trial of a libel action. The plaintiff appellant owned a number of cottages in a village and lived in one of the cottages. A new business was set up by boilermakers near to the cottages and the plaintiff obtained an injunction to restrain the carrying on of the business in such a way as to be injurious to his property and as a result the boilermakers' business terminated. Certain individuals in the neighbourhood were displeased by this result and decided to take up a subscription for the persons whose business had been terminated. On a public occasion, a placard was set up containing a notice that subscriptions might be donated to the former owners of the business "who have been ruined in their business and their living taken away by the animosity of one man". I take it from the report of the case that it was common ground that the one man referred to was the plaintiff appellant. Throughout the first trial there was no evidence as to who wrote the words on the placard or who erected it, but it was proven that the defendant took up a position near to the placard and remained there pointing at the placard with his hand and attracted attention of 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) comments without reference to the comments could not amount to a republication of the defamatory comments.