The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-10-27 00:00:00

DUNCAN V. TUW&ITEI.

Mr. PATE isoN appeared for ihelisTntiiinihis Call*, which was
an argument on a demurrer to the plea of the defendant, by whieh
he sought to be exempted from a liability to an action at law for
publishing a report of certain proreedings at Bow-street Police.
(dike. It appeared that the plaintiff had been there clerked with
an assault or. a young female only thirteen years of age, and with
other improper conduct towards her. A statement, purporting to
be a report of the proceeding. at thee Policemffice, appeared in the
Mortanz Gerald of the next day. This report the plaintiff alleged
to be injutiuus to him, as it did not contain the whole of the trans-
actions that transpired at the Police.ollice, and as it wee materially
defective in not stating what the accused party had to advance in his
vindication. In answer to t tis it was pleaded that the report con-
tained the substance of what had passed at 'low-street. and that it
was correct. To this a replication was pet in, impesching the ac.
curacy of the report, complaining that the depositions in favour of
ale. Duncan had not been originally inserted, and denying the
right of publication altogether. The depositions were subsequent!,
entered, but this, it was contended, was not satisfactory for the
omission in the first instance. The pleadings were very volumi-
nous, nearly repeating the same points in six or seven different
pleas. The learned Oentleman proceeded to cite several ones
analogous to the present. In that of Lewis v. Walters, a state.
alma appeared in the paper quite different from what was after.
wards proved at the trial. It was pleaded there that the statement
was a correct summary of what took place at the examination
before the Magistrate ; but this was not considered a justification
fir publishing the re-parte statement of the proceedings before
trial. It was not sufficient that what was published was correct;
it was necessary, in order to establish the fell, fair, and just sem.
racy of the report, that the whole of the evidence be published, by
which the readers of the newspaper might be left to judge for
themselves on the whole case. Hut all comment and lefereees
front the evidence, calculated to aggravate the ease against either
of the parties, was libellous matter. As to the plea which alleged
the matter of the libel to be true, it was not sufficient that there
as, no motive nor intention of malice in the publication ; tie erect
of the publication. as it regarded the character of the individual af.
forted by it in society, was the proper view in which to entertain
the question. Neither was it any extenuation of the offence to al.
lege that the statement appeared in other papers. In the argument
in the case of Anson and Stewart the Judge o'nseteete the appear.
ance of the libellous matter complained of in other newspapers was
tie extenuation. This only gave a greater facility to the cireo-
lation of the scandal, and lithe case should go to thijwxy,he would
direct them to find their verdict upon the whole case, and to with•
draw that consideration from their nettle altogether. It should be
observed that the present comnlaire was instituted for a publics.
tion not of proceedings in a Court of Justice, which he admitted
there was a privilege for publishing, but for ex-paY le proceedings
before a :Magistrate. ethical might afterwards be canvassed in a
court of la. or equity. Even 'kis privilege of publishing. what
took place in a court of law was subject to considerable restriction.
as appeared in the case of the King te M. Carlile. Particularly in
cases of adultery, evidence was eemssarily given for purposes of
justice, which it would be extremely wrong and libellous to pub-
lish; and it was but proper to prevent publication, in order that
young minds might not receive the impression such evidence was
calculated to create. In die case of the King v. Lee, which was
one in which an Excise officer had been apprehended for shoo:ing
a smuggler, the statement before the trial, as prejudicial to the
prisoner on his trial, was held by Mr. Justice Heath DI be high)
criminal. In the la 1:1 newspaper a report appeared of what too
place at the Mansion-(louse, before the Lord Mayor, and it was
drawn up io such aggravated terms against the accused pa-ty, ea
almost to tender it impossible for any person who read it to be an
unprejudiced juror at his trial. It was a case in which a captain
of a ship had made an assault, and attempted rape on 'marled we.
man, in her passage from the Al'est Incline to this country. The
statement was accompanied with strong observations of animadvert.
lion and although It was sought to justify it, on lie ground of its
accuracy, it was held to be libellous. On that occasion Lord
Ellenhorough remarked, that the administration of justice would
be greatly impeded, and that it would be impossible for jurymen
to come with pure and unbiassed minds to the discharge of :bete
duty, if for weeks and months precincts to trial they hid been in
the habit of receiving I npressions prejudicial to the CCCIIONI party.
The effect of such impression was extremely irjefitel it led to
the acquittal of persons who often merited eunishretta, foe fretu
the fear of acting from antecedent prejudice, 'and preview impres.
skies, jurors were induced to acquit, where the interests of justice
required they should condemn. In the prevent hietauwe it
was impossible be any person to read the account siren is
the paper, of the treatment which this Isar experieured, without
being filled with indignation against the person who had so treated
her. Such statements prevented a fair and dispassionate trial. It
was therefore desirable that the public statement of evidenee etiosall
be reserved for the Court of Justin. The selcantages of such a
course were great and paramount—the evils rare and accidental.
In the rage Of the King te Fleet, wlich related to the es
taken before a Coroner, the publication was held to be hielily
'tenantry. (hi that occasion the Lord l'hicf Justice (Abbott) en.
marked, that " any person who attended to the operations of has
own mind, knew with what difficulty impteesiens, pareculerly
those of sentiment and passion, were subsequently removed." Tbs
cue of the King v. Clement, a ease in which a penalty was
for publishing an r.t. party statement of a trial of wine of the
street IT:liter}, went to establish the sane
.point as the other Cher,
lie hail cited as to the iniprapriety and criminality of publishing
ex-pate statements affecting stewed persons. Time Leerned
tiesnan proceeded to cite and comment on the eases of Cow v. C. I!.
ridge, the King ce Creevey, &c. which he contended sustained ate
same argument. The prucentinge in the House of Commons wens
of a different character, in no Judge would pronounce what was Nam
there,—it being a branch of the Leetelatere of the country,—to br
libellous. He was unwilling to go into the question how far this
privilege extended.
Mr. Justice BILYLET—The pric ihrge was the privilege of •i.e
place, where, whatever is said i. free from the character of a libel,
but this privilege did not extend to publication afterwards.
Mr. P•vvisou resumed, and cited, in addition 10 Villiollll
other precedcote. the ease of Ctn.), r. iVahers, where an actions
was brought for a statement that appeared in the Timer DC
under the bead of " leave Report." It had been furnished b7ra
person engaged to furnish him with legal intelligence. In that case
simeieemeg, wan pleaded, which saes not availaWe. He (Mr.
I'.) would admit that he could not find a case where an artiest had
been instituted and judgment pronounced its a ease similar to the
present. Thiele which he adduced were proceedings by indict-
ment, most of them puelic Goes ; but he thought an action w.cuitil
and ought to lie time an injury of this kind. The differenee a tweets
roc:sling Dv indktment and by action, was. that time one wan ei.
'muted for offmces tending to " a breeds of the peace," wheeee.
the other was instituted far a civil injer.. No iiijury could be
grayer than that which allac:ett a man's charm-reit, and as these
was a criminal course oe proceeding for the injure to the put'', r.
there ought also to be a civil reparation for the injury te the lethal,
dual i'receteliegs it. a Coen of I eew were not always a stineete
mania tor publication, and re-Forte proceedings before trial • ,!ra
generally most ueuriola ; at least ice a proportion of caws tat one
to tire hundred. no good remitted from it—the advantage, whoa it
dui result, was contingent, and by nu means to be counterbalsucee
by the evils inseparable front it. One certain evil was attendant er
it—that of iti.tring the feelings and character of many innoceet -
sons against whom an accusaron teneetiotie charges appear ,
print before they had the opportunity real power sfifully 'Attunes
than. Thus a charge etten sonewe. and the world becomes ac.
quatrain with it, arca miress4 with its creme s yefore, by sub*.