The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-28 00:00:00

?.aln Enttilignur.

'HOUSE OF LORDS.
Present, the Lord ('hone Her, Lord Campbell, and other Peers.
LEFAX A• II ANOTII Ell V. MALCULMSON I) OTH ERB.
—la REL.—PLEA DI NO.—ThiS was a writ of error on a judg-
ment of the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, affirming a
judgment of the Court of Exchequer there, in an action
brought by the def. n-iants in error arsine the plaintiffs in
error. The plaintiffs in error are, or we're in 1844, the
publishers ant printers of two newspapers in Dublin, called
the Warder and the Statesman. The defendants in error
are owners of a factory ant cotton mills at Mayfield, near
Portland, in the county of Waterford, and carry on tbere on
a large scale the manufacture of cotton and other fabric
under the style and firm of Malcohneon, Broth. is. They
brought their aotion against the plaintiffs in error for libel-
lous articles inserted in the said newspapers, and laid their
damages at 2,0001. The articles complained of as libellous
••••• • t., r•• .n,l re,nm•••• r• , imputing to the
Mews. Maleolmson tyrannical violation of the laws
for the protection of the factory labourers, charging
them, with employing their operatives by night and on Sun-
days, with compelling them to buy their bread, shoes, and
other necessaries at shops patronised or set up for the pur.
pose by themselves., and with cruelty in enforcing fines tor
breakages of windows, &e. The plaintiffs in error pleaded
the general iisue—that they were not guilty, and other pleas,
to the effect that the matter complained of was inserted
without Insilco or gross negligence, and that before action
brought a lull explanation and apology for the said matter
were published in the said newspapers. The explanation or
apologry an referred to was set out te the pleas, and it seas to
the effect that the ediurs or publishers of the newspapers
were entirely ignorant of the existence of the Messrs. Mal
colmsoo, that the article complained of was of general appli-
cation, and not pointed at any firm, and that if any
parties felt aggrieved they might have redress by applying
for explanati in or rttractation to the said newspapers. The
action was tried at the spring assizes in 1845 at Water-
ford, before a special jury, who found a verdict
for the plaintiffs, the defendants in error, for 5001.,
and judgment was entered up thereon in the then succeeding
Tfnity term. A new trial was moved for in the Court of
Exchequer 'n various grounds and refused, and this judg.
me it was affirmed an the Exchequer Chamber in May 1845.
—Mr. Ellis, for the plaintiffie in error, now contended that
the declaration did not state any thing libellous, or applica-
ble to any particular persons or factory, and he cited several
ewe: in support of that position.—Sir F. Kelly an I Mr. Cow-
ling, with whom was Mr. Rani's, of the I. ish bar, for the
defendants in error, insisted that there was certainly enough
in the litel, and it was proved that it applied to the defen-
dants in error.

The Lord Chancellor said he had listened with great atten-
tion to the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
in error, but did not think theta was any good ground for
reversing the judgment. The proposition for them was, that,
though the bury had found this matter to be a libel, and
applicable to tic defendants in error, still the libel was so
framed that no declaration even after verdict could sustain
the complaint. It way not denied that if the article had
been addressed to them and to their factory by name it
would have been a libel on which trey could have
sustained an action. But it was contended that the
article, not being so addressed, could not be made the
aubiect of an action for libel. The words were "It
soma factories in England were conducted as some far.
tories aea in Ireland" (hi. Lordship read the libel).—The
defender its in error said th it their factory was referred to,
and the j nay found that the words did bear the meaning
thus wig nerd to them, and did apply to the factory of the
defendants is error. Yet the plaintiffs in error raid that
though the Berms used must apply to somebody, the court
could not d 'dere them to be applicable to the defendants. If
a party cou. 'd with impun:ty publish a libel in such a form
as was here nonrated against an individual, but without
naming him, though it left no doubt as to the person in-
tended, yet t. wrause it woo published withnut naming any
one (no one c amid show that in fact it applied to himsel),
the mischief a tufal be gloat indeed. Such a docnine would
open • wide dc or for the publication of libels. Some old
cum had been ...an red to to order to show that such was the
law. The leatited counsel, when asked to refer to some
modern case sub ,re a uch a doctrine bad been upheld, re-
ferred to the case of " Solomon v. Lewson." There a par.
Ceuta? expression of I. ord Denman was relied upon, but in
order to determine its value it was necessary to look at the
whole case. Now the whole case showed that the court had
founded its judgme.-it noon the fact that the alleged libel had
no real reference to anybody. That case, therefore,
was not en authority lot the proposition for which it was
cited. Hero the inter ~. nes alleged an application to tke
defendants in error, and the jury found that that allegation
was well founded. The next objection wu that the defendants
in error could not maintain a joint action for this libel, for
that they had as t sustained e.ny joint injury. But this libel
pointed, as the Wry found, to their factory. The matter
of it related to the way in much they conducted that fac-
tory, and, eons( got ntly, it contained an imputation equally
affecting all of tnen 0. Coder these circumstances, his bra-
ship was of opinion that the defendants in error were shown
to have a good sauna of action, and consequently that the
judgment of the court below mart be sustained.
Lord Campbell said .'ie was of the same opinion, notwith-
standing all the arguments which had been so ably ad-
dress d to their lordsh,ps by the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs in error. Whether a man was called by one name
or another, or by none al, all, if those who listened to what
was said knew that he wao meant, and if the things uttered
were defamatory of his char. cter, the party so libelled
might maintain an actArn. Ile fully agreed with the Lord
Chancellor that the case or " Solomon e, Lawson " was in-
applicable to the present, bar:rause in that case there was no
libel whatever—nothing that ty innendo could by possibility
be made applicable to the plaintiff there. His lordship also
expressed his concurrence with the Lord Chancellor on the
other points.
The judgment of the court rselow was affirmed with coats.
Jane's's Divoace BlLL.—This case was before the house
on the 18th of May, and the circumstacces were then re-
ported in this journal.—Mr. Crowder and Mr. Bigg, on be-
half of Capt. Jervis, now examined some ',Annus for the
purpose of supplyieg defects in the evidence taken on the
former day. Mr. en; wder, in conclusion, said the case was
now complete, and the evidence, taken altogether, showed
that Mn. Jervis had been 2iving with Mr. Vann: tart at or
near Deyrah, in the Julluadue, from March, 1844,