The Express.
London, England, 1858-06-04 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Rance.—Before Lord Campbell, sad fustiest
Coleridge, Brim and.Crdamtue.)
LEWIS V. LEVV.—PIII/11.20113 IMPORTS.
This was an action for libel against the Doily Telegreja.
The alleged libel consisted of • series 'of reports; publisMd
from time to time, of certain promethium before Mr. Alder-
man Rose, at Guildhall, on a claret made meanie the plain-
tiff for perjure, which, after several hearioge, was eventually
dismissed. The defendant pleaded Brat not guilty, and
secondly, that the report. in question were tees and faith-
ful accounts of the proceedings before the magistrate,
and that he hod pulfshati them boot fide and without
malice at the trial which took place before Lord Canitibeil, a.
Westminster. The jury found a verdict for the defendant
upon both hems. Subsequently a rale was obtained to
enter a verdict for the plaintiff notwithstanding the finding
of the jury. The reel question raised for the decision of the
court we. whether the bent fide publication of the tine and
faithful account of aa investigation before a magistrate on a
criminal charge wee privileged.
Lord Campbell now delivered a very elaborate judgment
cm the case. After explaitung the pleadings, and
to various authorities, his lordship said the plaintir=
contended that the privilege of reporting legal proceedings
wee confined to the superior courts of law and equity, but
no such question as to the dignity of the court could be re-
garded, and they must look to the nature of the judicial
proceedings reported, end for that purpose no distinction
could be made between a pie poudre court and the
Rums of Lords sitting as a court of justice. If the magis-
trates, under the pretence of giving advice, heard publicly
slanderous oomplainta3 over which they had go jurisdiction,
though their names were on the commission of the peace, a
report of what passed before them was as little privileged se
If it had been the report of what fell from sane
illiterate mechanics assembled in an alehouse. It
was contaaded that the reports of proceedings Wort
magistrate. were not privileged, but the court by no
means mended to that general proposition. Proceedings bee
fore magistrates under the 11 end 12 Vie., c. 43,
which gave power to than to summarily convict alter hearts(
both partite, subject to an armed, were 'Wetly of • jultelid
astute. Those proceedings took place in open court, the do
fondant as wail as the prosecutor might retain the assistance
of a solicitor, counsel, end call witnesses, and both parties
being heard end judgment pronounced, the proosediugs might
lawfully be made the subject of a printed report, if that
report were impartial and correct. The court woe
not pretend to lay down that preliminary him&
rise before magistrates were universally lawful,
but they were not prepared to say that they were univer-
sally unlawful, although there was no dicta to that effect
The publication of proosedlnge before a magietrate, in • pri-
vate room, would undoubtedly be unlawful ; but while he
eat in a room in which as many of the public as could con-
veniently be accommodated were admitted—end that comes
. _

wee 11; best °skeletal for the investigatka of kWh
sad the entleisotory admieletration of Judie% ea k
most teem it certainly wield be—the Alija alll
court in which he sat mu t be co •
court of justice. They did net as. how, en
cue was to be distinguished from the daily report In a awl
s.
paper of a criminal trial which lasted some days before the
Court of Queen's Bench, or the Central Criminal Court, at
at the &seize*. It bad been adjudged that, if the due ad-
ministration of judos required it, the court bad authority to
make en order against publishing any pert of the trial and
the whole bad been concluded ; nevmtm, where no sack
order waa made, the practice existed of daily pubtfehlng tritium
any disapprobation by the court, each day's proceeding'
until the trial ooncluded ; and in several instances Wimp
tic* had really extended the area of the and been Gni
highly beneficial in discovering material The amt
gave no opinion in favour of the geosed
reports of preliminary examinations before raw
Go party neared was committed or tooleTrWhe sa
tolletable WOG, bat thireould not join in the OW
igkeedea dike, repithittleleh had bees p
Ge boogie gekkokos ewe warts were folly
?Mena bawd Ibettbit often led to the
peobikoat of oboe esti deeribmes to the of
abuosike. Lai Doom rid, beim • esgrillee_gt tb•
Home of Lardy, is 1143, as the law of libel, that 111 BM MO
doubt that police reports were extremely useful GOO
lion of the guilty, by making the facts
bringing them more accurately to the
of all parties interested. The public, he added, are
aware that these promedings may be ex parts, and ilhop
will become more and more aware of it, in proportion Ulla
growing intellingenoe ; they will know that such proem
are only preparatory to • trial, and will not form an optetogego
AU the trial conies on. The perfect pablicity of judiciedpkesei.
Iliffs le of high importune, in other points of view bet mei
ef me regards its effect in character. A etetiLleatehole
k aro kegs will probably find its way to the ems ißel gh,
=be in elucidation of the truth.
be Y an exaggerated form or the impubstrui=lll
.acre wrong person, sad both these evils are
Um* reports in the public journal,. The court
=VeMO at liberty in this cue to hold that an
nwege report of the proceedings was lawful,
therlo=llolPpilit that the verdict for the
L the pleatras no bar to the action, sad OM R •
varlikA te'tie eatem. far the plaintiff, with L. og
the plea of " not guilty " to the second count of the
Hon, and that the verdict for the defendant is ttnetles el
not guilty" on the first and third count should i
Judgment accordingly.