The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-18 00:00:00

DAWKINS v. LORD PAULET.

On Monday, the Court of Queen's Bench delivered Pt,lz
meat in the Hag tion which has for some Line been pend-
ing between Colonel Dawkins and Lord F. ?enlist
The plaint:ff, Lieutenant-Colonel Hawking, who
formerly held a commission in the Coldstream Guards.
sued his mmuminting officer to recover damages for
bled, under the following circumstances. The plaintiff
wrote to the Adjutant. General complaining of some
order which had been given to hint by the defen-
dant; and be sent this letter to the defendant to
forward. The defendant did forward it, and ac-
companied it with a letter of his own, in N% bias he
sail that the plaintiff was iticompet nt in the
fietd, and unfit to conduct the business of a
battalion in barraclia. It was this watement
that the plaintiff complained of as libellous. The de-
fendant pleaded that it was his duty to accompany the
plaintiff's letter by a report of his own, and to refer to
the incompetency of the plaintiff. To this there was
a replication that the words complained of was written
with actual malice, and without reasonable, probable,
or justifiable causea, and not in the bond fide discharge
of his duty. This replication was demurred to, and
the question raised for the court was whether even sup-
posing it could be proved that the defendant was ac-
tuated by malice an action of libel could be maintained
against him.
Lool Chief Justice said that the court had to
determine whether the replication afforded a sufficient
answer to the plea, and irrespective of military re-
sponsibility there could be no doubt that the replica-
tion would be sufficient. In point of law it would be
sufficient answer to the allegation that the letter was
written in discharge of duty, to say that there was
malice and want of bona fields, for in the performance
of duty honesty of purpose was essential. To main-
tain the demurrer it must be held that a subordinate
oftis.er wan entirely at the mercy of his commanding of-
ficer, who could bring seainst him charges which be
knew to be false, and it flirt the most disastrous conse•
quences upon him, without the aggrieved party being en-
titled to ally redress in a court of law. For his part he
wagnot prepared to arrive at aconcluaion so startling and
unjuet. His lordship, after reviewing at length se, eral
cases, Bahl he could not hold that an officer agaitot
whom false and slanderous charges had been made by
his superior should be debarred the benefits of the
Qieen's courts in a country whose boast it was that
there nut no wrong without a remedy, and whence
such prohibition existed in the Mutiny Act or the
Articles of War. Under these circumstance:a his twit
op,mon was there should be judgment for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice M,llor delivered the opinion of himself
and the late Mr. J twice Hayes, and said that it being
the duty of the defendsvit to make the report it woo
hard to see how it could become anti mini ins simply be-
cause the defendant acted maliciously in discharging
the duty. The iiiiestion amounted to this—a/id an ac-
tion lie against a man for maliciously doing his duty?
arid his opin.ou was that it did not. His conclusion,
therefore, was that the present action would not lie.
, thought that there was wrong reason to believe
that the legislation, having established special military
tiihunale, intended to prevent the military from ap-
pealing to the ordinary tribunals of the country. Tile
judgment ought, therefore, to be for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Lush's judgment was also real. He
was likewise of opinion that there should be judgment
for the defendan't It must be presumed that the
Mutiny Act and the Articles of War formed a com-
plete military code ; and it was not sufficient answer
to say that the code was imperfect because the court
had no power to supply a remedy for such a defect.
Judgment for the defendant,