How have courts interpreted privilege in a libel case?

In Smith v. Hatch, 271 Cal.App.2d 39, at page 50, 76 Cal.Rptr. 350, at page 357, the court stated: 'The privilege of section 47, subdivision 2 of the Civil Code (relating to privilege of publications made in judicial proceedings) . . . is based on the desire of the law to protect attorneys in their primary function--the representation of a client . . ."

And in Hollis v. Meux, 69 Cal. 625, at page 628, 11 P. 248, at page 249, the court said: "This rule (against a libel action) . . . is founded upon public policy which requires that a judge, in dealing with the matter before him, counsel in preferring or resisting a legal proceeding, and a witness, in giving evidence, oral or written, in a court of justice, shall do so with his mind uninfluenced by the fear of an action for defamation or a prosecution for libel. . . ."