The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

ANDREWS V. CHAPMAN-ACTION FOR LIBEL.

The plaintiff appeared in person to conduct his own
case ; Sir F. Thesiger, with Mr. 80-ill, instructed by
Mr. Dobie, appeared for the defendant.
This was an action against the printer and publisher
of the Morning Herald newspaper, for an alleged libel
which appeared in that journal on the 26th November,
1849, under the form of a report of proceedings in the
Court of Chancery, and of a judgment of Lord Chan-
cellor Cottenham in a suit in Chancery, in which the
plaintiff in the present action was the plaintiff. The re-
port of the judgment was preceded by a narrative of the
circumstances which gave rise to the suit, of which the
plaintiff, who described himself as an attorney and a no-
tary public, now complained. The defendantpleaded a jus-
tification, and proved his case by putting in the statement
made by the plaintiff himself in laying an appeal case
before the House of Lords, and from which it appeared
that, in the year 1824, the plaintiff had commenced pro-
ceedings in Chancery against the defendants in the suit,
and had been engaged in various proceedings in Chan-
cery and in the common.law courts until 1839, when he
took his case by appeal before the House of Lords, where
it is still pending. Mr. Clark, a witness on the part of
the defendant, proved that offers had been made to the
plaintiff to stay all proceedings, and put an end to the
matter which he had refused until 1849, when he was re-
leased from prison, in which he had been confined for
several years. A detail of the various proceedings taken
by the plaintiff, and described in the report, would be
perfectly uninteresting and immaterial.
Evidence in reply was given on the part of the plaintiff,
consisting of a letter from himself to the solicitors of
the defendant in the Chancery proceedings several years
ago, containing an offer to refer all matters in dispute,
and an answer to the effect, that the defendant's attor-
ney preferred to abide by the Lord Choncellor's judg-
ment. • • •

The plaintiff, in his address in reply, complained of the
word "wantonly" being put in the newspaper, whereas
he had neither acted wantonly, nor from a wish to harass
the defendant in the suit.

Lord Campbell, in summing up, said it was rather a
melancholy spectacle to see a gentleman so far advanced
in life, who might have ended his days in respectability
and comfort, from a morbid love of litigation, presenting
himself before a jury under circumstances so much to be
deplored. The action was brought for a libel, and he
must say the article in question was not exactly what
he could approve of. By the law of England a fair
account of what took place in a court of justice might
be published, but then the reporter who gave this
account should not mix up with it any comments of his
own, It had been stated that it might be the duty of the
journalist to make comments. He would say nothing
about that ; but if he did comment, it was not to be done
under the head of the report that gave an account of
what took place in court. These things should be kept
entirely separate, Here there was not only what was
said by the Lord Chancellor, but also a detailed account
of proceedings which had taken place a number of years
before, with comments on them that certainly should
not have appeared there. If there had been simply an
account of what the Lord Chancellor said, as that ap-
peared to be correct, the proprietor of the newspaper
would have had nothing to do but to plead not guilty,
and to call the gentleman who prepared the report, and
show by him that it was a fair report of what had taken
place. Although all that the Lord Chancellor said was
not inserted, it was quite clear that the substance of what
he said was inserted, and the privilege of publishing re-
ports of proceedings in courts of justice would be useless,
if it were necessary to set out every word of the evi-
dence and the speeches, and what was said by the judge.
If it was substantially a fair account of what took place,
there was an entire immunity for those who published it.
But here there was an introductory part, which did not
appear, under all the circumstances, to have been exactly
what was said at the time, and, therefore, that had
thrown on the defendant the necessity of what was called
a special justification. What the Lord Chancellor had
said was rather mitigated in favour of the plaintiff than
exaggerated. It was only inserted in the exercise of a
privilege that he hoped would always exist in this coun-
try, of giving a fair account of what took place in courts
of justice. They were open to all the world, but they
were of limited extent, and by means of the press the
whole nation was put in a position to form their own
opinions as to the conduct of a jury, the witnesses, and
the judges ; but the jury must say whether the evidence
that had been given was sufficient to prove the in-
troductory part, and to make out the plea of justifi-
cation.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the de
fendant.

Lord Campbell having expressed his concurrence in
the verdict, observed that it was impossible for the law
to protect the press from vexatious actions ; but when
newspaper proprietors conducted themselves with pro-
priety, when they came before a jury they had an acquit-
tal and an indemnity, as far as those who sued them
were capable of paying for the costs which had been in-
curred. Taking a great interest in the respectability of
the press, he must say that the reports which were given
of law proceedings were generally extremely impartial ;
but it was not right to mix up comments with reports,
as the comments ought to be given in another part of the
paper.