The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-29 00:00:00

BRITANNIA.

Tilts Eviairul, RICH A: r 6 1,741 C-
- by Mdlle. C. Ste-
phan mid Mias Morton. The Hungarian Dancers.—To
conclude .101 TRH CORPORAL'S DAUGHTER. Mews. Rey.
molds, Cranford, & Blgwood MlssClaraSL Caw& Mrs. S. Lame-

RIGG-WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE.
THIS DAY —Mnrning, lb. 58ni Afternoon, I. 15m.
TO-MOnnoW—Morning, 211. Sinn Afternoon, 2.b. 50=

LONDON, TUESDAY, MA Y 29.

Ws published yesterday a law report cal-
culated to correct errors which experience
teaches us are far from uncommon, and to
diffuse a better knowledge of the obligations of
the newspaper press to the public. The case was
an action for libel, founded on a report which
had appeared in the Sheffield Indeivudent. The
Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy visited
York Castle under the provisions of the Bank-

zuptcy Act, and there conducted an inquiry for
the purpose of ascertaining whether a debtor
named GRAY, who was confined there, ought to
be adjudicated a bankrupt. GRAY had been in
partnership with two other persona in a brewery
business, but the inquiry concerned himself
only. One of the partners was Mr. RYALLS, and
the report stated that in the course of the
inquiry GRAY said that Mr. RYALLS had made a
compromise with his creditors. When the report
appeared Mr. RYALLS wrote to the newspaper
denying that he had made such a compromise,
and complaining of the injury which the state-
ment was likely to do him. The proprietor of the
Independent thereupon published an apology
in a supplement to his paper, but it failed to
satisfy Mr. RIALL4, who brought an action for
damages for the injury dune to his reputation.

At the trial the defendant pleaded that the state
ment complained of was an accurate and impar-
tial report of what took place at the examination
of GRAY before a judicial tribunal, and that there-
fore it was tinder the protection of the law. The
plaintiff denied that the report was privileged, and
further alleged that it was inaccurate. Mr.
Justice KEATING, who tried the cause, told the
jury that if the report was made without malice
they must find a verdict for the newspaper. The
jury decided that the report was both bond fide
and accurate, and the verdict was accordingly
given for the defendant. Last term a rule was
moved for by the plaintiff on the ground that the
judge ought to have told the jury that the com-
munication was not privileged, and on Saturday
his counsel were heard in its support. They con-
tended not only that the report was not
privileged, inasmuch as the examination of
GRAY in York Castle was a private one,
but that, even assuming that the inquiry was
of a judicial character, the allegation was libellous
because it was defamatory, and also because, inas-
much as Mr. RYALLS was not a party to the pro-
ceedings, tho introduction of his name was irrele-
vant ; and lastly, that if it was not irrelevant, still
the examination containing it ought not to have
been published. The decision of the Court of Ex-
chequer disposes of all these objections. The
Judges were unanimously of opinion that a fair
report of the proceedings of such an inquiry
could not beinade the subject of an action, although
its effect might be prejudicial to the complaining
party. The LORD CHIEF BARON said it was
important that the public should be informed of
what took place on such occasions, and that the
reports, instead of being limited, should have the
widest circulation. Baron BRAMWELL said that he
knew of no such restriction as that of limiting
persons who published correct and bond fide re-
ports of proceedings in courts of justice to giving
what was relevant to the matter in hand ; the
reporters had a right to report what took place on
the occasion. Nothing could be clearer than the
decision of the Court of Exchequer. Never-
theless, we suspect that some persons '
here and there will continue to believe
that the press is in fault, and that they have good
reason to complain of it, if not to bring an action, as
often aa they find their names in a newspaper report
in an uncomplimentary connexion. There seems
to be a notion lingering in some minds that ne XS-
papers take a liberty with individuals when they
mention them in disagreeable relationships. They
forget that a newspaper serves the public by its
reports, and that they themselves like to know
what takes place on public occasions without the
trouble of personal attendance. The desire to
make reporters and publishers responsible for the
accuracy or relevancy of the statements of depo-
nents in courts of justice—a responsibility which,
it must be evident on reflection, they can never
assume—is a remnant of a state of feeling which I
was very general fifty years ago, and which has
found expression in judicial decisions, but it is
quite out of harmony with the wants of this age.
Witnesses are constantly making misrepresenta-
tions in the courts, and the newspapers can do
nothing but report them. To suppress some evi-
dence because it is improbable, and some other
because the bearing of it is not seen, would be to
assume a prerogative which our newspapers have
not yet taken to themselves, and we believe the
public would much prefer the faithful report.
Our judges now declare that the newspaper press
has a right to be protected in the publication
of law reports so long as it acts in good faith.
All the advantages of this decision will accrue to
the public. We could in a great measure protect
ourselves by reticence against an oppressive state
of the law ; but is is better that we should enjoy
legal liberty, and be able to servo the public with
the energy and confidence of freedom.

The Indian papers state twelve tigers have been
shot in the N::::,pore district within ten days. Four of
these tigers were inan-eat.rs. Nagpore is one of the moat
advanced distiicts of the central provinces of India.