The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTEL LEGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 14.
(Sittings in London, before the Lord Chief Justice and
Special Jury.)
PUBLICATION OF POLICE REPORTS.
DUNCAN V. TREND AND OTHERS.
This was an action against the Morning Advertiser, simile{
to that brought some time since against another Morning Paper?
for publishing a report of proceedings in Bow-street Police;
Office, in which the plaintiff; a Solicitor before the Court 0`
Chancery, was charged with an indecent assault upon a young
girl.

- Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The plaintiff, a young matt+
brought this action to vindicate his character, and to obtain.
damages for a libel of the grossest nature. Character was of
peculiar value to a solicitor. The defendants were printerf:-
publisher, and proprietor, of the Morning Advertiser. 'l'he
public press was a most powerful engine either for good or'
evil. The proprietor, unless he gave up his author, was al
responsible as if he were the author. The libel consiste,,
of a professed report from Bow-street. It had been decided
over and over again, that if any libelous reflection upon an •
dividual appeared in such report, the party was amenable to die •
law. The libel began " Bow-street—a scene of depravity."."'-!,
(The Learned Gentleman read all the particulars of the 6001,
of attempted rape upon Ann Chandler, a girl of 13 years of age,
whose mother lived in Middlesex-street, Somers Town. The.
plaintiff was stated to have denied the greatest part, to have
pleaded intoxication, and to have given bail for 200/.)—TO
publication made no mention of the plaintiff's name, but the
publication of the 16th July did mention his name. If a junta'
fication had been pleaded, every part of this would be proved t°
be false. Money could not repair wounded: honour, but die
amount of money was the only evidence of the opinion enter'
tainett by a Jury of the injury done to character.
Evidence having been examined to prove Mr. Duncan's re':
spectability, anti the publication of the libel.
Mr. Moue: Ham addressed the Jury. It was every evidco
why evidence was not given more fully upon the point jot -
decided. Plaintiff durst not call any clerk of Duncan's, 0'
any person who could disclose the truth of this action. Tile
•
alleged libel was as true and correct as decency permitted. In
another action a justification was entered, and therefore the
plaintiff had no intention in this world to bring it to trial. IR:
cause no justification was entered here, the plaintiff hoped
_t,"
get a verdict, and to pocket the costs of the action. He agree':
as to the evils of the press when wielded by impure bands, °'
directed by malice and falsehood. Scourge was not too strong ,1
word, when perverted to purposes of private spite, to het'
up virtuous characters in colours that do not belong to thetil:
But was this case of such a description ? This man of par"
character, who could never excite a blush in the face of inn°.
cence, " the defendant, denied the greater part of the chartye,
but admitted that he might have been a little imprudent. Pa
was a little elevated with wine." In the morning ? If I,e
regarded character, if he regarded his damagei ; his damage'
as his own client, his costs as his own attorney, could any thing
be more important, could any thing be easier than to prove a
this a fiction ? But there was internal evidence of the truth!
There was internal proof that there was no malice. At firs'
no name appeared. Not till matters assumed a permanent
shape, and parties were bound over to prosecute, then the nalo
was given, but not one observation upon the charge, either og
way or another. It was evidently the report of one in the
discharge of his duty, and written with all possible
cacy. The observations to discredit the girls were all t",
favour of Mr. Duncan. They were inaccurate, but they wet'
all in favour of Mr. Duncan, and a badge of innocence of incest
tion. It was an abridgement, as stated by Mr. Attorney',
General, but the details were too disgusting. What had take"
place was put in language as chaste, in a manner as decorougt
above all, as favourably to Mr. Duncan, as it was possible!
He could if he indicted for conspiracy or perjury, have el;
plained how this respectable Solicitor came to be elevate'
with wine in his chambers in the morning. If he did not
,
choose to prosecute criminally for the violated laws of
country, he might bring a civil action for arrest and false •
prisonment. But he did nothing of this kind, but brougi"
this action rather than one where justification was enteredl
because it was not a fiction—because there was no malice, aP
no misrepresentation. Now he would advert to police report'
ing—a subject of the utmost importance and delicacy. At ttl°
time of this publications, there was a general—an almost unt'
versa( belief, that there was a right to publish proceedings
a public police-office. In consequence of proceedings brougte;i
by this plaintiff; the question came before the Court oficril
Bench on the pleadings in the action against the Morning 04'
raid. So far as he understood it, the decision of the Court l'il
unfavourable to publication. But it was a question of gre°
difficulty ; it had not before been so decided, and an opinioo
prevailed that the reporter, as one of the public, had a right 10
publish the proceedings. This opinion was generally enter'.
tamed in Westminster Hall. When this publication took plate',
no such decision of the Court was given or anticipated. Wit"
all due deference to that decision, given after much consider*:
tion, he would take leave to say, that, notwithstanding tll
public were enlightened by the decision of the Court, and tp"_,.,
grounds of it, their opinion of the usefulness of the publicadw
of police reports was not only not changed, but it was rat
.•
strengthened. Still it was the opinion of many in Westniirl.'
ster !Tall, that such publication was legal as well as salutary..
*The decision of their Lordships too was in course of heirtv'
brought under the review of a higher tribunal. In conclusioe,
he begged the Jury to keep constantly in mind that this'actie°
was brought by the plaintiff in preference to one in which °;
justification was pleaded ; that it was one of many actions 0 •
which he was his own attorney ; and that there was no Inaliee'
no falsehood, no misrepresentation, on the part of the LW'
fendants.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up. When no just:
fication was pleaded, it was admission that the matter of the
libel was not true. The defendants might have pleaded that t%
statement was true, or they might have pleaded that it was
correct report of proceedings at Bow-street, which was a very di':
ferent plea. His Lordship expressed great satisfaction that the
decision of the Court of King's Bench was in a course to be
brought under the consideration of the House of Lords. Til„°
expression—" Scene of Depravity," was not a report, but a",,
opinion of the reporter. It could not he ascertained that It
was in the morning the transaction took place. It was scarcel,:
contended for the defendant that the verdict must go against
him. The damages were for the Jury. Ile would say, as o;
all other occasions, let their verdict satisfy the Public that "
was unbiassed, moderate, and temperate.
The Jury turned round for fire minutes, and then returned
their verdict for the defendants.
Mr. HoLT was with Mr. Bitouote mat fur the defemiant.

cox v. icEaN.
It is understood that this cause will certainly corns on OP
Monday.

Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, at the SUI"
OFFICE, No. 112, 4itra,ntl, by J. B. CARSTAM6.