The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

TI•NICAN V. TIIWAITES.

The boar) CHI Er Jusr ICE proceeded to give judgment in this
case, which excited considerable interest, as it related to the lega-
lity of publishing police reports. This was an action for two elicited
libels which appeared in the „Ifeening I ferold of the 10th and ICA
of July. The defendant had pleaded several pleas to the declare.
Lion, and to some of these pleas the plaintiff had demurred. The
pleas to which he demurred were the 2tl, 3d, 4th, sth. 6:h, 7th, and
Bth. The demurrer had been argued before the Court last
October, and the juilemont which he was now about to tie_
liver should be coneidered as the jiyhtment of Messrs. Justice
Bayley, Holmes, and himself, as 51r. Justice Isittledale took
no part in the discussion, as he had formerly been engaged as
Counsel for one of the parties. The pleas which were demurred to
lie would place under two classes ; the first related to the publica-
tion of the 10th ofJule. and the 2d to the publication of the 16th
of the Ilam, month. These pleas agile admitted of a subdivision
into the proceedings which took place before the Magistrate, us Ms-
tinguiahable from the comments upon them. The plaintiff* was
described in the declaration as a person of good character. It fur-
ther stated that he had never been accused or suspected of Mile.
eently assaulting females, and that he was a Solicitor of the High
Court of Chancery. The alleged libel of the 10th was to the fol-
lowing effect :—lt stated, that one Andrew Duncan was brought
before Mr. Halls. a Magistrate of Bow-street, on a charge of as-
saulting Anne Chandler, • child only thirteen years of age.
There the case underwent • hearing. and after Anne ('handier and
other witnesses were examined, further inquiry was deterred to a
future day. It further stated that the evideace of the child herself
and her companion, 51r. Duncan's cousin, of the same age, displayed
such a complication of disgusting indecencies that we srum' detail it.
It is right, however, we should my. the accused denied the prir..
cipal tact. alleged, and that the children made moat: slight va-
riation in'their evidence. Eventually the accused was adinitted to
bail, himself in 100 L end two sureties in 50L each. It was stated on
the part of the plaintiff' that this was publication before trial, or be-
fore there could be an opeortunity for it; and that further, there was
no indictment preferred against him, or any trial prosecuted in of such a charge as that adverted to in the above para.
greph. The publication was calculated, he complained, to prove
injurious to his reputatinn and character; and for the injury he
thus sustained he instituted an action. The other alleged libel was
on the Pith of July ; it ran thus:—" A. Duncan, the attorney,
who was charged a week ago with attempting to violate a child of
thirteen years of age, was again examined, but no new fact trans.
pired, and he wee ordered to enter into recogebances for 2001. to
appear at the Seteinne, and the witnesses were bound over to pro.
secute." The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also
pleaded specially a justification, and that the facts were true, and
that the paregraph was inserted without malice, and inertly as en
object of news. On that part of the case he would have to remark
when he came to observe presently on the second plea. The third
plea simply telexed that statement to be true, but this was rani.
fie.ey a bed pipe, far it slid not convey, with auffieient dietincinert,
whether it was meant that the facts stated at the police office was
true, or whether it was meant that the report of the proceedings
there ti the newspaper was trite. The fourth plea repeated that
the faces weru trite, and added that they we:: suited openly in a
public room, before Mr. Halls at Bow-street. This plea was
hable to the same ohjecion as the former. The fifth plea averred
that the proceedings vectored opeuly, that the plaintif was brought
before Mr. halls, arid after setting forth the examination%
of Arm Chandler and the other witnesses who were examiard„
it stated that the plaintiff denied the charges, and was admitted to
bail, on entering into his werernbences ; and fiirther, that the ee.
port was a fall, true. snit correct account of wha: lassoed sit the
Poliee-ofliee ; but this plea was bad also, as a material question
was omitted which had been put to Anne Chandler in the course of
the eeamination, to which else repeateely answered " he did not."
This was material to the plaintiff to have stated ; and in cease-
! quenee of its omission, the account could not be called a correct,
fair, and just one. The sixth plea WAS drawn up in nearly similar
terms, but it applied to the second libel, which contained no cons.
meet, nod was pot therefore liable to the ehjection taken to the
Winer plea, which ueplied only to the first libel. This, therefore,
'has held to he good. The eighth idea also was good, as it applied
to the second libel ; but the seventh was bad, which applied to the
first; the difference rolllliSteli in setting forth the exemitiation at
leresh in the seventh, and not introducing them into the eighth.
Ile now came to the mencipal plea, which was the second ; that
plea set forth that the paeigreph was inserted merely as a subject
of public news, and that there was no intention of malice in the
publication, and further that the procedings reported there
10011 place openly and befit, a Magistrate. Thai plea cen-
tained the question on which the Court were more immediately
called upon fur their judgment. It proceeded 03 the pre-
sumption, that it was lawful for every l'Aistor of a news-
paper to publish whatever occurs before a Justice, in the WA'?
of Prehtllll,2ll7 proceeding, provided it be tree and correct, and
teat he be free item a niellcious :ntee.tioa in publishing, it. Th..

Curt were of opinion that he bad not. If the erect of the pub-
lication was to prejudice a person previous to trial, or to Injure or
take sway one's reputation, on the insertion of ex-perfe proceerturts
of that nature, an action would lie fur such an injury. The question
had been argued with great ability and research by Learned (lends-
men on both sides. It was unneeessaryfor him to revert to the several
cases which had been eked ; **eke it to observe, that none et
them were precisely similar to the present, and none of them
supported die legality of each publications. The case that emus
nearest to the question, and it cam, very near it, was that of
"Curry and Walter," as reported in the let voL Repine:se. 4.11.
and in ‘• flosanquet and Puller," b2S. The authority of tbe
Learned Judge Oho gave that decision had very great weight,
although it had met with very general approval--rlthough this
doctrine then laid dews by the Learned Judge had rime been
doubted or disapproved of in seine gunners. There was fhli
material difference between that case and the present, however,
that the procerdings there occurred judicially, whereas the pressed.
were before a Justice. The Court bad frequently condemned the
practice of pnblSthing proceedings preliminali to trial ; and if
calculat- dto prejudice the party on his triaa, it was unques-
tionably illegal. There was a decision of r. Justice Heath,
reported in the sth 1:01/Srasse, 451, besting dwely on thic point,
and. consroting the views the Court toot in its present de-
rising. AU who heard him (the Lord Chief Justice) could
easily remember many instances in which tripe,* publications this description had been attended with very great mis-
chief and ineor,Nenienet. The occasions were frequent that they
had reason to lament it. Those instances bare recently become
more frequeut, but they are not therefore the less unlawful, tree is
it less the duty of those who are entrusted with the adnilnis
tratiun of justice to declare them to be so.. He was not event
repared to admit as a proposition now the legality of the pcb-
hcstion of ex.prrefe proceedings even in thit Coun ; but that was
not the present case, and he should therefore deliver no opi-
mem upon it. Whatever tends to prejudee a perzon upon L*
trial prevents the due administration of justice, and they with whops
that adniinistrition tests were bound to preserve it femn •iolatloo.
Whether the mthlication arises from personal or with a view
to personal profit, the effect is the 'sole, and the effect is that from
which the law infers the malice. Acts not unlawful in themselves
frequently become so by reason of the injury they do to others.
For instance, an offensive trade may be introduced into a town :
the trade, though not in itself illegal, yet the inconvenience tr-
mischef attendant on it might lustily the inNbitants of that town
to institute an action fur its removal. Here tlya.ve might be no
personal r.;ahee, but the effect of the injury was that which the la",
regarded. 11 is Lordship proceeded, by further illustrations. to
show that the malts anions was legally inferrable from the effect
consequent on any act. These observations arose Nom the objec-
nuns taken to the declaration. The judgment of the Court was,
for the plaintiff on the demurrer to the first, second, third. fourth,
fifth, and seventh pleas to the declaration ; and for the defendant,
on the sixth and eighth.

THE KING v. REED.
Mr. Evers moved for a rule to shsw cause, why Richard Reed
should not surrender and give bail before a Judge in Chamber.
He was convicted of inanslaugh•-r by a Jury, in consequence of u
cow of his having killed a child. (Much laughter.) When this
Jury }were about to return their verdict, !lte prisoner departed, from
a hint which it i ruproacd he received from Me Coroner. 'lle
Learned Counsel proceeded to state the grounds on whir," he made
the application.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, without hearing the further Lets
of the case, said, the learned Counsel had stated soffit 'tent grounds
to obtain the rule for which he applied.—Role grantel.
hlr. J.WILLIaIIi appeared no the pan cc Mrs. Salon. A writ
of Habeas Corpus has issued against her, requiring her to product
two children.

The Lon TY Cuts? Justice suggested the expediency of havi`p
the ease laid before a Judge in Chambers.
Mr. SCARLF.7T approved of the auggevtion of his Lordship. as
the discussion of it in open Court wo•dd have the effect of laying
before the Court scenes of domestic bickering and unpleasantness.
This was the last day of term, bad the Court sat until near
eight o'clock in the evening.

COCRT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, Nov. 22.

The CHIEF Jurricr, on taking his seat, observed that some
douin having been expressed as to the rule dra.va up by the. Cann
relative to fines, avell rule should, for the present, be suspended.
FORGED TRANSFER OF STOCK.

DAVIS V. THE BANK tit' ENGLAND.
The CHIEF JesviCE, in delivering the Judgment of the Court
In this case, observed upon Its great miponence to the interests ci
the public. This was an action of tort. It alleged that the plain.
tiff was the holder of certain stock, upon which be was entitled te
his dividends; and that the defendant, improperly allowed it to be
transferred without the plaintiff e authority, by reason of which h:
had suffered serious loss. t'h'ere rem emend counts in the decim-
ation. The lint question for the Court now to decide is, whetht:
the stock mentioned had been transferred out of the name of the
plaintiff or not? We think it has not been transferred; that be is
null the legal owner of the stock ; that he is entitled to the dist.-
dends accruing on that stock, and that he cannot have a verdict tn.
the first and tnitd counts of the declaration. The 3 per Cent. Con.
soh were perpetual annuities for heal made to the State. The
Long Annuities were similarly created. Both species of stock
were trahsfetable, end the transfer could only take place by del:-
very, that deliver:, to be with the consent of the party in writing, or
by his sufficient attorney—and so the law requires. If the trensta
in writing be not authorised, it can have no legal effect it it he
forged it is the same. A forged indorsement, for example, on a
bill of exchange, amounted to nothing; and the same held with
regard to forged shares of any company, beside that of the Bank of
Lugland. The Bank of England bad no more right in this re-
spect than the mast insignificant body; for, on the contrary, the
Legislature expressly provided for the conveyance of stock front
holders to the purchaser. In the early Loan Acta there were talkies
and endorsements, for the purpose of informing the Government*?
whom such talkies were payable; and eudorenueuts were made inane
Bank books, to shew who were holders. and in case of transfer to shoW
to whom such transfer was made. With this endorsement the Banu.
had now nothing to do, and they were as much bound to pay this sue.
of money as they were to pay any of their bills of exchange or pro-
missory notes. were not now used; and in many, if not to
all the Loan Aets, it is provided that books were to be kept for the
registry of the transfer of stock, to be signed by the parties or
thew proper attorney, and to be attractl by two crolible
witnesses ; and so any person may me by looking into the lyres
cf George I. chap. 1, sec. 23, and the 4th of George 111. chap. lit
To cunetituie a good neuter there must be an assignment mid air
acceptance ; but its the transfer bete the assignment is waning_
The Bank books contained evide lice of the tramOr, and PVC4a
copies of the Bank books might be admitted as evidence of sus4
transfer. There were cases in Peale end Espinasee, 665, to coo-
firm this doctrine. In Auriel v. Smith, to be found in Vesey, the
Lord Chancellor had decided that the books must be produced, ace
why to show if the entry in the books was or was not in the
hand-writing of the person in whose name the hanger stood. %I e
are not here called upon to decide, whether the parties selling
the parties accepting the stuck arc to endure the loss. But we sto
know, that the dividends will not be paid to two persons. Em-
barrassment no doubt will arise in consequence of UM; but the
question is, whether the Bank should sutler the etnbarran.
meat, or injustice be done to the public? The Bank mum
be satisfied before they make the transfer; they are allows[:
a reasonable tinge fur inquinn4 into the genuineness of the mg.
natures; and the Bank, and not the stuck-holder, should sur-
er for the want of such inquiry. We cannot do jumic: to the
plamtiff if we du nut say the mock is his. The tranractioce ne
question took place sonic years ago, and if we now decided that ma
plat^ tiff should have compensation for the amount of his stock, he
would evidently suffer a lose, not only its replacing his capital, bat
also its the amount et dividenthaccruing upon it. If compensation
only were awarded, the stock-bolder must lose; and it the judg-
ment were delayed, at we find it in the present instance, the plaintiff
would lose his dividend during the investigation of the cam, and be.
periups, tarred of its recovery by lapse ut years. Them was also
the L/14 arising front not being tilde to take advantage ci' the nie
of the funds, gad it was here said that all loos would be oh.teasd.
by replacing the stuck. But then mute the question of the losit
dividends, and the locust upon such dividends ; tend, im (*et, if
the Court were merely to decide for compensation only. an alaem.
I lag consequence might occur, sod persons living wat of Loath., „
I whose haloes were u!eged to powers' or attorwy, might lose use
their property by their claims being barred by the statute of hue—
Galena. In cases to be found in Barnwell and Aldoreon, tfitt. anst
4 Moore, it wits held, that the statute of limit alone began to tuna
from the time at whieli the transfer was made, even thosgh, a time
recent case, We parties knew nothing of such transfer. We earl
find no direct cases on this point, but we find a ease in itarnardwtee.
in which a forged transfer was mule by one Edward Hammon to
his brother. The brother drew the bill, and the bill was tiled by
the execute( of the real owner (also Edward Barri-mon) against the
Sou•h Sea Compeny, and the lewd l'hanceilor them held, that the
executor should :MVO satisfaction for hie stock from the South ea.
Company, in which it was placed. His Lordship added, that • Mote
difficult question arose from this, vie., how tar the Bank were or
were not answerable for any loss occasioned to the estate of Bar-
riaston, by nut being able to speculate upon Lis capital The saute
case wee better reported in 2 Atkimc, 120. The stock in liar-
rismin c. Harriman, was transit,. md by a trustee, though in hermit
of trust, and the question then was, whether the South Sea eJIII-
- or die trustee was bound to pay ? and this accost:steel ter the
difficulty started in the Lord Chancellor's decision. We are MK.
called tattoo to say, whether purchasers of stuck sold under forged
powers of attorney, are to hate their purchases confirmed, MA to
hold the right of receiving their dahlends. But in seder so
prevent that alarm likely to be treated by the argument
urged on Lhe part of the defendants, we do desitte that
thin Batik cannot refuse to par subsequent purchasers of Meek,
which, it) fax as they were clocerned, wee a Lee Ale purchase.
The Bank is paid by the public for keeping books of registry of AU
transfers ; and the Bank cannot be :omitted to say that they will
refuse such purchasers full satiefaction. ii this were not so, abs.
would purch..se stuck, or who could say that the stock so purchased
WWI his own ? Facility of transfer is a great object, and, if par-
ch:wee of stock were obliged to look after all the particulene Faeces.
eery to a transfer, and asecrudning the identity of the seller, transfer
would soon become almost impossible. From the manner in shah
Mocks passed through different hands, the number it
persons selling and ouying stuck, who wan of tile same
name, it would be beat to impuseible to trace out or tell
who were the legal possessors of stock, no different *OM real estate.
The purchasers of stock never went further than the Bank books,
and Lie, we say, that the phintiff's right is not affectect by the
forgery, and dint his dividend mast be paid. True it Is that the
pleuit.ff knew of the forgery in March—that he dish not aitutatitnt.
sate it to the defendants till the Sirembet fulluwing, aal 800
be had alto mampted tit= les brother a check fa: sonic money L.

I

f~

i

U

ii

,
ist

Ii

•
; •

ill

; : 1
• i .
I
i. ;.'

Oise be quitted the kingdom. This might be a misdemeanour in
some casts, but of that we ate not now to take any n0mi,.... ft is
se4d on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff could now
ofill demand the dividends he required them to pay on sth April,
lONA and July in the same year, and that he was barred from
the recovery by his concealment of the forgery. It was also said
that by the conduct of the plaintiff the Bank might have paid the
dit Wends to improper persona, ot refuse them to proper persons,
a-td we agree to a certain extent with this principle, aid say, ,
that if the Bank raid the dividends. she plaintiff canoot recover. 1,
Xtb,atever could bar the plaintiff's right to twitter. might be offer- 1
eta by the defendants I but here there was no evidence which could
obhge the Court, In equity or conscience, to bar him of his right.
It was not enough for the Rank to say, we might have paid—they
wtre_bound to rove they had actually paid the dividends. It was
oallattl trynn principles of public policy if we might not assist the
defendants ? And in answer he said, that Judges shoat, pro-
OW 'kith caution in deciding any eds.: on tpmunds of public
stry—as the rights of the subjeat would then be in their discretion.
e were many eases in which the Judges had opinions of public
y different from *hove of others, as in the came of wagers, and
ogler matters of that nature. Rut the Judges would not tout
wives to net judicially on grounds of public policy. Public
plint.y referred to iiijuries to the public, and it was said to be
ISO& policy to do what the law cominanyled, and to abstain front
Mt/ that which the law proliibitel, and Courts will not allow sit
7C: to be brought ag•tir.it
.persons *hr. do what the law coin-'
or who abstain from doing what it forbids, because public
*they might otherwise dictate. The plaintiff's action here was
stiolutded o i the rerunl of the Rank to pay his dividends. which
they are bound by law to do, and his being guilty of a misprision
of felony by the fact of corecalmeht, does not deprive him of his
:glut of action. here we know nothing of forfeitures of a titan's
good,. or of all his property, because guilty of a misprision of
:.lose (according to law) the guilty party being liable to one and
inipt isoement„ at the discretion of the out:. It was con:ended
dbit civil actions merged in Oa felony ; but it was never held that
the owner could not proceed fur the recovery of his property until
the conviction of`the ((lon who had stolen it. In the case of a car-
rier who lost a man's proucrty. or from whose cart it was stolen,
would any man say that he cenid not bring his action till the
robber was prosecuted to conviction ? The Bank was tautly in
the same situation, and it was never decided that the concealment
was aa answer loan action like the present. The Jury foui.d there
was no evidence of the assent, but merely u' time concealment of the
vtagery ; and foe these ?comma the Court decide that the verdict
fo.tod for the plaintiff on the second and lour, h counts of the de.
slaration, for the the blends demanded, do stand.