The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-25 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

BOW-STREET.
NEWSPAPER STAMP ACT.-CASE OF MR.

TRUELOVE.

Yesterday Mr. Henry gave his judgment in the ease of
Um Board of Inland lie , as follows:
.. The defendant in this ems was summoned at the in-

161111011 of the Board of Inlead Rovosso, be answer an infor-
amino which churned him with having ea the 23rd :Feb-
rility last knowingly and wilfully mid s newspaper which
was ant duly stamped, and the cpseigans which I have to
amide, are, first, whether the mon in 'amnion, which is
nisi The Potteries Free PM, Old Weekly Narrative of
Ciarmal Boy* ie a ' newspaper" vials the meaning of the
seempara—aad, if it be, whetkoc a decadent knowingly
eel Windily sold it. In dellang what is • newspaper, I
mastbe gelded by the lanfaueed in the schedule of the
set OM mid 7th William IV. chap. 76, and by the coast/ur-
ges pagilineishzenege the Co
ease of the .u2ttoofroßeiztiecrez is
Ato the rule laid down in that
ileshien, I think lest a newspaper liable to stamp
duty, may be dwarfing to be any paper containing
public news, intelli or esearrences, which is printed
for sale, and published periodically at intervals not en-
ending twisty-six days. The learned counsel for the de-
feadaat could scarcely contend that the Potteries Free
Preis was not • newspaper that would fall within this, defi-
*idea, and be therefore relied more upon the argument
that, inasmuch as certain other weekly publications, which
he alleged to be newspapers ejuedem generic, were per-
mitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to be published
'without • stamp, his client was led to suppose that the
Potteries Free Press was not liable ; with that view he
referred to the Atheneum, the Builder, and the Rae*
and he instituted a comparison between their OW
tents and those of the Potteries Free Press. It way be
doubted whether such evidence was Meetly admissible, but
I thought it right to receive it, and having carefully looked
through ell the publieetioes referred tee lam efapisiei
that there is a sonfilhet ilistbolisa batmen th
and the Potteries Pees Prot tbs /Menem
to be a paper devoted to literary, and the BBttlefffitMlt
to architectural subjects, and the Aries Times mesas to
confine itself to racing topics. An essasional paragraph
may be found in each of these pnlilsollese, which may not
have a close affinity to the @abjure* which the paper pro-
fesses to be devoted, aad, although It may be more prudent
for the proprietors to omit such paragraphs, I think that
all those publications are mainly, Una wholly, confined to
one particular or elan subject, and cannot be said to con-
tain miscellaneous news; whereas, the very title of 27ie

Potteries Free P/081 and Weekly Narrative of Current,
Events implies that it is published for the purpose of nar-
rating events generally, and not upon any clue subject, and
upon a perusal of the contents of the paper, I am satisfied
that it cannot fairly be considered as a newspaper, ejusdem
generis, with the publications to which it was compared.
The remaining question is, did the defendant knowingly
and wilfully sell an unstamped copy of • news-
paper which the law required to be stamped ?
It was proved that upon two occasions unstamped
copies of The Potteries Free Press were purchased
at his shop, upon the first, from the defendant himself, and
on the second, from a person serving in the shop, the de-
fendant's name being still over the door, and upon looking
at both those copies, I find the defendant's name printed at
the foot of the paper, as one of the London agents for the
sale of the paper ; I cannot doubt, therefore, that he was
aware of the nature of the paper he so sold. An objection
was taken that the defendant is net liable for the sale, on
the second occasion, by his servant—but there are several
authorities to show that he is : see the cases of " Rex v.

Dixon" (3rd Maule and Selwyn) ; " The Attorney-General
v. Siddon" (Ist Crompton and Jervis); and " The Atter-
ney.General v. Riddell " (2nd Tyrwhitt). The chugs laid
in the information having been thus established against the
defendant, it only remains for me to fix the amount of pe-
nalty which he should pay. If the summons had been
taken out aping the proprietor, there would have been no
r at: s 8 n 1 for any mitigation, but as there was no evi-
to show that the defendant took any active
part in originating this newspaper, I think that I
may with propriety exercise the power with which
the act invests me, to mitigate the penalty to one-fourth,
and I accordingly order that the defendant shall pay the
mitigated penalty of 51., and Is. costa. Before I conclude,
I think it right to notice a complaint which was made by
the learned counsel for the defendant, that this case was
not submitted to a jnry. The Stamp Act gives to the
Board of Island Revenue the option of promsdiag either
by information beim ateiatrato, or by an information ia ,
the Coen of Bsobsqt UM blies, it pun it ll*