The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-20 00:00:00

TEL SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 10, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 18.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
3ustices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
COE V. WISE, CLERK TO THE MID-LEVEL DRAINAGE

salvation of man and the glory of God, called upon them to
increase the circulation by five times what it was on the
publication of the Prince Consort letters. Mr. Pratt treated
it as a matter of business—of a stimulating character, and
likely to produce its effect on those reading the appeals.
The Lord Chief Justice—One looks after the spiritual
element, and the other the commercial. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bovill then referred to the letters of the subscribers,
some with names and others with initials attached to them.
One was an " Old Soldier," and some little ridicule was
thrown on the probability that plaintiff was the " old
soldier." (Laughter.)

The Lord Chief Justice said if it had been only ridicule
he should have gone along with the learned counsel.

Mr. Bovill—lt was suggested that the old soldier was
fictitious.

The Lord Chief Justice said it was not only so, but it also
wohbijlee putting forward to
ct of contributing,
the
e c tl y
public charged
the
great r
e a
t thata tnhde
importantplaintiff,
subscribing, and of using every possible effort to convert
the Chinese to Christianity, was guilty of gross imposture ;
that his whole object was not to effect what he professed Ito
have in view, but simply to obtain money by the circula-
tion of his paper. and that with a view to promote that end
he pretended that he had received communications from
individuals who were entirely fictitious and imaginary, and
had no existence but in his own brain; and that he Put
down names and subscriptions which professed to be a
subscription list. He could not help thinking that it was
a charge of direct swindling and obtaining money under
false pretences
Mr. Justice Crompton said it was not a criticism on the
work, but a direct charge of crime.
Mr. Bovill then referred to the remarks of the writer on
the subscription list, and his allusion to their existence like
Mrs. Harris and Sirey Gamp.

The Lord Chief Justice said it was a very iungent and
cleverly written article.
Mr. Justice Crompton said the writer had a perfect right
to ridicule the matter, or if he makes personal imputations
he must show that it was privileged, or that it was true,
which had not been.

The Lord Chief Justice said that, however much the
plaintiff's conduct was open to criticism, it was impossible
the moment he appeared in the witness-box to doubt his
honesty, and that he and those connected with him were
enthusiasts in the matter.
After some considerable discussion,

The Lord Chief Justice said there should be no rule.
The article was unquestionably a libel. It imputed to the
plaintiff that he put forward the great and sacred cause of
the dissemination of religious truth amongst the heathen
to put money into his pocket, and that he was acting as an
impostor.
The other learned judges concurred.

Rule refused.

Mr. Bovill said the jury found that the article was
written under the bona fide belief that the charges was
true. Here was a subject brought before the public by Dr.
Campbell in his own newspaper, and he asked the public to
tax themselves for the purpose of supporting certain objects.
Another paper attacked them, and said that instead of doing
it for the purpose of the salvation of four hundred millions
of Chinese, he did it for the purpose cf putting money into
his pocket. The question was, had the Saturday Review a
right to make such a comment.
The Lord Chief Justice said it must not be assumed that
the jury only gave the damages on that point. He was
obliged to tell the jury that if they did not consider the
articles privileged both the charges were libellous. It must
be taken that the damages were given for both charges.
Mr. Bovill said he was entitled to a rule if he could show
that the verdict was wrong on either point. This was a
matter that had been brought before the public by the
plaintiff, and was open to public criticism.
The Lord Chief Justice—Most certainly, if fair and
proper.
Mr. Bovill contended that the moment it was shown that
an article was privileged, it became necessary to show ex-
press malice.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it was a mistake to speak of a
newspaper being privileged. The editor of a newspaper
had no different privilege from any other of her Majesty's
subjects. He certainly was not privileged to make charges
of dishonesty. He thought the jury had very properly
found the article libellous.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—To make privileged you must
assume it is libellous.

Mr. Bovill read that portion of the article which referred
to the subscription list and the " Old Soldier," and said
there was a great deal of banter about it.
The Lord Chief Justice said he did not know that an
imputation was the less painful or effective when put in the
shape of a banter. It was a laughing way of putting it to
say, " So many copies for the ' Old Soldier.' We know who
the old soldier is;" but it was none the less libellous.
Mr. Justice Mellor—You admit it is a libel.

Mr. Bovill—The jury have found it so. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice said a public man's public cha-
racter might be criticised, and the accuracy of the judgment
questioned, but his private reputation must not be attacked,
or base motives attributed to his acts.

Mr. Bovill said he should contend that it might, so long
as it was connected with the subject matter under discussion.
Was not this such a case as would render it necessary for
the public interest that the matter should be brought for-
ward to prevent the public from being mulcted of their
money ? The learned counsel proceeded to argue that this
case stood in the same position as giving a character to a
servant, and a parson stating that the servant was dishonest
was not actionable if he made the statement in the honest
bona fide belief that it was true.

Mr. Justice Crompton said that a man giving an answer
to a question was a very different thing from publishing
the charge in an advertisement.
Mr. Bovill said he could not perceive a more important
object than that of informing persons that the money was
wanted for one purpose when it was wanted for another.
___

The Lord Chief Justice—Why did you not justify, and
ask the jury to come to your opinion?
Mr. Bovill further urged that it was to the interest of the
public that these criticisms should be published. .
The Lord Chief Justice said he believed that the great
security to public conduct was the high sense of public
honour and honesty of our public men, and he believed that
it they were to deal lightly with it, and allow them to be
attacked by persons who entertained adverse views, and to
be dragged into the mire, more mischief than good would
result from such a latitude being permitted them.
Mr. Bovil said that might be so as a matter of policy.
The Lord Chief Justice—But you say that it is to the
interests of society that it should be so.
Mr. Bovill then proceeded to quote several cases of libel
tried within the last few years in the Courts of Common
Pleas and Exchequer, especially the case of Paris v. the
Daily lelegraph, and the opinions of the learned judges on
the law of libel,
which, he urged, were favourable to his
view of this case.

The Lord Chief Justice said the great question in
those cases was, whether it was or was not a fair com-
ment. It was the first time that they had heard that in
such cases there should be proof of express malice. A fair
comment was, to use a familiar term, privileged; but if a
comment carried with it a wicked assumption that the con-
duct was one of great turpitude, then it was a libel. The
moment an imputation was made it became libellous, and
required a justification.

Mr. Bovill said that if a man honestly believed it he had
a right to publish it, and let the great man stand upon his
character. There was no question of truth or falsehood in a
case of privilege. The observation that Dr. Cathpbell's in-
tention was to put money into his own pocket was a fair
comment.

Mr. Justice Crompton said he had no wish to see the
liberty of the press diminished in the slightest degree. Per-
sons might express their opinions upon the charges of
judges, bishops, or decisions of magistrates, and they might
say they were foolish and ridiculous, but they must not say
that they acted from corrupt motives or had received a
bribe.

The Lord Chief Justice—l am of opinion that there
should be no rule. The article upon which this action is
brought is, unquestionably, libellous. It imputes that the
plaintiff, in putting forward the great and sacred cause of
the dissemination of religious truth among the heathen,
was acting as an impostor, his sole motive being to put
non?, into his own pocket. It charges him with publish-
ing, in his newspaper, as genuine, a fictitious correspon-
dence, addressed to him by imaginary persons, and the publi-
cation of a fictitious subscription list. It is said that inas-
much as the plaintiff put forward this public object in a pub-
lic newspaper, addressing himself to the public at large on a
matter of not only public but universal interest, he was
open to public comment, and in that proposition I en-
tirely concur. If his scheme was fraudulent and dispro.
portioned to the object he proposed to have in view, it
was fit for comment and was within the scope of fair cri-
ticism ; but it seems to me the lino must be drawn be-
tween hostile criticism, between a man's public conduct
and the motives by which he was actuated ; and you have
no right to impute base, sordid, dishonest, and wicked mo-
tives, It turns out that this imputation was most undoubt-
edly without foundation. It may have been that Dr. Camp-
bell, in addition to the religious enthusiasm and zeal that
actuated him, may not have been altogether insensible to
the collateral object of promoting the circulation of his
weekly publication, but there is no foundation for saying
that it assumed on his part the character of imposture,
or that he had resorted to a fraudulent and false device to
induce the public to contribute towards it. That being so,
Mr. Bovill was obliged to take his stand on narrower
ground. lie says that because the writer had a belief that
it was true, then he was justified. I cannot subscribe to
that. You have a perfect right to canvass a man's public
conduct, to say that it was foolish and absurd, and that the
effect of the subscription which Dr. Campbell was asking
the public to contribute was to put money into his pocket;
but when you go beyond and state that he is actuated by a
desire of putting
money into his own pocket, and that he
resorts to fraudulent expedients to do so, you are charging
him with positive dishonesty. The doctrine cannot be
pushed further than a full right to comment in the true
spirit of criticism. It is said that it is for the interest of
society that men's public conduct should be criticised; true,
but on the ocher hand, it seems to me that we all have an
equal interest in the maintenance of public character,
without which public affairs never could be conducted with
a view to the public welfare and we ought not to sanction
attacks upon public men de'structive to their character and

I honour, unless they can be proved to be true. I therefoie
I think that no rule ought to be granted.
The other judges gave similar opinions. Rule refused
I accordingly.