The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fra. 7.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
STOCKDALE V. HANSARD.
(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.)
The plaintiff replied in a speech of three hours duration, in
the course of which he was repeatedly recalled from wander-
ing into irrelevant matter by the Chief Justice. He contended
ti atthe defendants' first plea of Not Guilty could not be main-
tained on the grounds alleged by the Attorney-general, inasmuch
as the privilege of the House of Commons could not extend to the
protection of its servants or members from the consequence of
acts done or publications made outside its walls ; and to the
second plea he replied with great prolixity, by describing the
book alluded to in the alleged libel, as a strictly scientific work
on the subjects of human anatomy and physiology.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE then summed up. The defend-
ants had pleaded, first, that they were not guilty ; and, se-
condly, in justification, the words complained of being true. The
issue on the first plea was to be tried on two points : Whether
the defendants had published the report, and whether it was li-
bellous. The publication not being denied, the jury had to find
whether the book was really and fairly a scientific work, and
unjustly described in the report. Yet it might be said that
a person publishing a scientific work on anatomy and physio-
logy must unavoidably use terms and publish plates, which
in common language would be described as most disgusting
and obscene, and indecent in the extreme. It was the opinion of
the plaintiff that those terms did not apply correctly to this
book, and that he would be criminal, and guilty of an immoral
act, if he published such a book as this was described to be.
Tue jury had it in their hands, and they would form their own
opinion of its character. With respect to the plea of not
guilty, which the Attorney-General supported on a third
point, namely, that the Report was a privileged publication ;
i" 1 must declare to you most e►phatically," said his Lordship,
" that I dill: r entirely from the law of the Attorney-General.
I cannot admit of the existence of any body whatever in this
country, which can order or authorise its servants or others,
to publish and sell for money libels which might ruin a man
in his business, or injure his character. I think that on the
first occasion of this question being raised in a court of law, the
Judge would be an accomplice to the destruction of the liberties
of his country, and instrumental in establishing in it a tyranny
which no man could endure, if he did not emphatically declare
that the authorisation of the House of Commons can be no
justification for the publication of libel." If the jury were of
opinion that the plaintiff's book was not disgusting, indecent,
and obscene, they must find for him upon the second plea ;
and then would come the consideration of the amount of damages.
On that point the plaintiff had adduced no evidence to show
to what extent he had been injured in his business or other-
wise. A great deal had been said by the plaintiff on
the subject of a conspiracy on the part of the defendants,
to injure his reputation and trade ; but it was rsost irrational
to suppose that the inspectors of prisons arid the defen-
dants could have conspired for any such purpose. The in-
spectors, however, in the discharge of their public duty,
had brought themselves unnecessarily into a d►spute with
the plaintiff. It was not necessary to have introduced
any name into their report. It would have been as well
if they had only said that they found an indecent
book in the prison. Bat it shoald be also considered
that a book which was a very proper book for scientific men
plight be a very improper book in a prison.
The Jury, after an hour's deliberation, found for the plaintiff
upon the first plea, and for the defendants on the second,
naniels', that the book spoken of in the Inspector's Report
was disgusting, indecent, and obscene, his Lordship having
said that they must find in those three words expressly, if they
found for the justification.