The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-27 00:00:00

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

the Court of Queen's Bench, on Friday, a point of some
importance to the press was decided. It was in the case of
Davidson v. Duncan and another, and it came before the court
upon a demurrer to the defendants' plea. Mr. Manisty, in
support of the demurrer, stated that the action was brought to
recover damages for a libel published by the defendants
respecting the plaintiff in the Durham County Advertiser.
The article in question was beaded " West Hartlepool
Improvement Commissioners," and purported to be a report of
certain proceedings, and a discussion which had taken place at
such meeting respecting-a license alleged to have been granted
by the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Maltby) to a Rev J. IJ,
Burgess to act as chaplain to the cemetery. The learned
counsel read the report, which showed that the (iiscussion'was
of an angry and abusive character. Several of the commis-
sioners alleged that the license was
." a clumsy device on the
part of Mr. Joseph Davison (the plaintiff), and that it was dis-
covered by the bishop." Another commissioner said, "it
would appear that the whole proceeding was a fraud upon the
bishop as well as upon the public." Another said, "It was a
great scandal upon the church ;" while a third said, " I don't
see that. It is, in_ my opinion, merely a scandal upon Mr.
Joseph Davidson, the late bishop's secretary" (morning the
plaintiff) At the close of the discussion the commissioners
resolved unanimously—" That the commissioners do not
admit the necessity of any such document, and, being now
informed that the bishop himself repudiates it, declined to
recognise its validity." To this declaration the deferidants
pleaded that the said meeting of the said Hartlepool Improve•
meat Commissioners in the said libel mentioned was held as
therein stated, and the same was a public meeting of the
commissioners, acting under the powers of the West Hartlepool
Improvement Act, 1854, and was held for the purpose of
putting that act into execution. It then alleged in substance
that the article complained of was a just, true, faithful, correct,
and accurate report of the proceedings which took place at the
said meeting, and that there was no malice on the defendants'
part in printing or publishing the same. To this plea the
plaintiff demurred, and thus raised the question whether the
defendants were justified in publishing a true and faithful
report of the defamatory speeches spoken at the meeting of the
said West Hartlepool Commissioners. After hearing argu-
ments of council, Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that,
as the law now stood, the plea was bad. As the. law now
stood, a fair account of what took place in a court of justice
was privileged, it made bona fide. The public had great
interest in knowing what took place in courts of justice,
and what passed there was under the control of the judges,
and tho inconvenience which arose from allowing that
privilege was infinitesimally small compared with the benefit
which was conferred upon the public. But when an attempt ,
was•toads by the legislature to extend that privilege it had
failed, and till now in a court of justice the doctrine had never
been contended for. It might bo desirable that the doctrine
should be extended, but without some guarantees for the pro-
tection of private character, he (Lord Campbell) thought such
publications ought not to be permitted: If the plea were good,
a fair account might be published of what took place at a public
meeting, whatever injury it might do to private cbaiacter,
from a meeting of the county down to a meeting of a town
council—a meeting to levy a rate, or for the removal of a
pauper. At such meetings there might be a great number of
things said extremely injurious to private character, and if such
a plea as the present were a defence, there would be no oppor-
tunity for the party to vindicate his character from the
aspersions cast upon it. If the legislature saw fit, it might
extend the privilege to certain meetings sander certain qualifi-
cations. But the court had to decide according to the law as
it now stood, and he (Lord Campbell) felt wound to give
judgment for the plaintiff. Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr.
Justice Wightman expressed themselves to the same effect,
and Mr. Justice Crompton said he was entirely of the same
opinion for the same reasons. Judgment for the plaintiff.

IMMENSE CUAlN.—There is now in progress, at the
forge of Deacon Broomielaw, the largest chain
ever made in Scotland. This monster chain is being
fabricated for, the purpose of mooring the buoys of the
river Trustees. The iron bar from which the chain is
formed measures 21 inches in diameter, and each link
weighs 43Ibs. Each portion of the chain, eight fathoms,
is connected with the next length by means of a heavy
coupling of 50lb to t 2lb weight, and the entire length of
the chain when finished will be 120 fathoms.—Mk sgow
Herald.