The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

sible into two classes—one class stating, by way of induce-
ment, certain proceedings before Mr. Halls, a police-magi trace,
and the other class merely.p stating the libels,- and containing no
mention of such proceetim . In giving, judgment, however,
it would be necessary Only to advert particularly to the first
count, which applied to the firstlibel ; and to the thirteenth
count, which set forth the second paragraph. The first count,
after the usual inducements of good character, and of inno-
cence of the particular charge, stated, that on the 11th of July,
the plaintiff was brought before Mr. Halls, a police-magistrate,
on a charge of indecently assaulting Ann Chandler; that se-
veral witnesses were examined, of whom Ann Chandler was
one; that the case was adjourned to a farther hearing ; and
that, befsire any bill of indictment was preferred, or any trial
had, and while the charge remained wholly undecided, the .
defendant, intending to pervert the -course of justice, and to
injure and prejudice the plaintitf, maliciously published the
first of the alleged libels. That paragraph stated that the plain-
tiff was, the day before, examined on a charge of indecently
assaulting a female child; that the evidence against hint con-
tained disgusting indecencies which could not be detailed; but
that the defendant denied the charge, and therewere some tri-
fling inconsistencies in the testimony of the children. l'he
thirteenth count stated an adjourned examination, when the
plaintiff was held to bail; and then set forth a second article,
which consisted of a statement that the plaintiff had been again
examined—that no further evidence was adduced, and that he
was, in the result, held to bail to answer the charge. The the.
fondant pleaded the general issue ; several pleas alleging that
the plaintiff did commit the assault alluded to, on which issues
were joined ; and also several other special pleas, to which the
plaintiff demurred, and the sufficiency of which was the ques,
tints before the Court. The third plea very shortly stateti—
• . that the several flatters and things contained in the said
alleged libels were and are true." This plea Was *clearly bad in
law ; it was uncertain whether it meant that the proceedings at
the police-office were truly reported, or that the charge which
was the ,subject of these proceedings was well founded : if it
meant the last, it was insufficient according to several decisions,
for not specifying time and place; if the first, it clime within the
objection to the fourth plea. The fourth plea, applied to the
whole declaration, alleged in general terms that the suppoaed
libels were no other than true, fair, and correct reports of pro-
ceedings which took place in open Court, before a Alaeistrate.—
Now, as there were many counts of the declaration which did not
set forth any proceedings, this plea, as applicable to them, ought
at least to have specified. the proceedings to which it referred: as
to these counts, therefore, it was bad ; anti being bad in part, was,
according to the uniform rule of law, bad in the whole. The
fifth plea, applicable only to the first article, set forth that a
charge was made against the plaintiff; that it was heard in open
Court; and then, setting forth at length the depositionsofAnne
Cliandter,Anne Duncan, and Louis Dessaubeau, surgeon, aver-
red that the article wan a fair, just, and impartial account ofthe
preceedings. Now it was manifest on the face of this plea,
that the article was not a fair, just, and impartial account of
the proceedings ; because it made no mention of the deposi-
tion of the surgeon, who had distinctly stated that the prin-
cipal witness, on being asked by him, denied the main fact
On which the accusation rested ;—that plea, therefOre, was bad.
The sixth plea applied only to the second article, and simply
alleged that the plaintiff was examined again ; that no fur-
thee evidence. was .adduced, but that he wits held to bail ; and
as this paragraph contained no remark on the evidence, and
nothing more than this statement of proceedings, the Court
held this plea good, and that judgment upon it must be given
for the defendant. The seventh plea resembled the fifth, ex-
cept that it omitted one allegation in the first article, and was.
bad for the same cause. The eighth plea, like the sixth, ap-
plied only to the second article, and being he same in substance
also, was valid. But now, said the Lord Cluef Justice, I will
advert to the world plea, on which in argument the greatest-
stresS was properly laid. That Altai states that the plaintiff' did
undergo a long examination at the police-office, upon a charge
of indecently assaulting a female child named Antrehandler ;
that the evidence did disclose a tissue of disgusting indecencies:-
that the plaintiff' denied the charge ; that he was hound over to
attend on a futUre day ; and that on thatility the further proceed-
ings took place, which are set forth in the second article. This
plea then alleges that the defeotiantpublished the article as and
for, what in fact they were, just, true, and correct reports of pro-
ceedings which took place openly in the police-oflice, as public
news, and not from any malicious or unworthy motive whatsoever.
This plea is founded on a supposition. that it is lawful for the
conductor of a newspaper to publish in his journal a report of
examinations at a police-office, taken with a view to further in-
quiry, and where the charge is not finally decided ; but the
party accused is committed or held to bail—with these restric-
tions only, that the proceedings should be open, and that the
report is accurate, just, and fair; and hence it is inferred, that
however such report may affect an individual, he can sustain no
action against the publisher. The case on this point was argued
before .ue.with great learning: and all 'the authorities which
could be brought to bear upon it, were presented to our con-
sideration: It would be a waste of the time of the Court to
enter into a minute examination of those authorities; it is
sufficient to say, that there is not one which will support the
position on which this plea is founded. The case which ap-
proaches it most nearly is that of " Currie v. Walter," the de-
claim' of which at Niel Prins is reported in 5 Espinasse's
Reports, and the 'final determination of which is to be found
in 1 Bosanquet and Puller, 533. That case is undetubtedly of
high authority in itself, and derives additional weight front the
sanction of 31r. Justice Lawrence ; but it has been doubted by
subsequent Judges. There are, however, distinctions between
that case and the present to which It is proper to allude. 'The
article complained of in that case was a report of a proceed-
ing in this Court, the doors of which were always open, and
ought always to be open, to as large a portion of the public
as the place will accommodate. But a police-otlice is not
necessarily thus open : the magistrate may .hut it whenever
he thinks proper. Again, in " Currie ‘'alter," the pro-
ceeding, though exiarte, had teralinAted : it was a motion
for a criminal information, which the Court refused to
grants' and therefore the case was not put into any train of
more solemn inquiry. liut in This instance the party was
held to bail, in order to a trial, and therefore the publication
took .place while the proceedings were still pending. In the
" King v. Lee," it wait holden, that the publication of prelitni..
nary examinations taken with a view to trial was a criminal
act; and many learned Judges have seen occasion to lament
and to reprobate such publications. It is in the recollection
of some of us that they were once unfrequent; they have
greatly increased of late years, but they are not, therefine, the
less unlawful. I have pointed out the distinctions between
this case and that of " Currie v. Walter,"" but it must not
be taeekrinfmor, grantedeveninthtahtiswecohourldt, the publication
icatbioyn
loafw. e.r mkt
case is not now before us; it isnthtoereinfotirme,a'ectnetleisasat
such
must
Intotwb supposed
uecontended
by
Mr.
bawears,Yitntoi
p decidel
tl caitti nbs
latr ewlCe m
argument, that, even supposing. an indictment would lie for
the obstruction of public justice, still the party himself' alluded
to in the report could not sustain an action for damages : anti
also that the absence of malicious motive, which was admitted
by the demurrer, would exhonerate the publisher. With re-
spect to the first Itesition, I take it to be clear that when an
unlawful act is done by which an individual is particularly
.aggrieved, he may autumn, an action ; and who can say that
a man is not aggrieved by a publication winch tends to bi-
jure hie characters Aintl to excite a prejudice against him
On the absence of malice, antral in the plea, it must be oh-
served, that if the-plea be had in law, the statements which it
contains are not admitted by the demurrer.. But what is the
meaning of malice ? Every act unlawful iii itself and injuriotia
to others is in law: tegar4l as nialieioks, although there may be
no
actspner,snotirli
timwanwlierektwo the
ntaianwdrivuitlu
s,busil affected.
te
whichsometbe
consequences to others ; and which are not done with pity-
pose to injure, which nevertheless ate regarded as done mak
onimp. and furnish ground for indictment or action. Take the
common case of a soap manufactoty, lawful in itself; and rarely
conducted with any deeire to Annoy others ; yet whtn it be.
cotnes a nuisance to the neighbour*, they have a right of action,
andalie term " maliciously" is employed tocharectarize the '
offence. Thus every publication impeaching the character of
another, except under circumstances:which create a privilege,
is the subject of an action. In stating the objections to the
pleas, I have answered those made to the declaration, as to the
counts which are, timed on the first libel. Judgment, there-
-fore, must be given for the defendant, on. the Sixth and eighth
pleas, which- apply to the second article, and fprahe plaintitf•
on time second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh pleas, which
supply to two first. , . •

ilr. Evi?(s applied for a rul to chew cause, why Richard
Reed ihould not surrender, and 'give bail betbre e. Judge in
clianib"• il).onstqueticc, of a verdict, of manslaughter hei 91,1
found against him, for a cow or his hieing kined'a Child in
Lancashire..—(A laugh.)_Tho Limited Coumcel was . proceed-
ing to state that the affidavit set forth, that the Coroner had

given a hint to this Richard Reed to depart, while the Jury
were on the eve of returning their verdict.
The LOUT/ CHIEF JUSTICE directed the rule to be issued,
without airy further statement of facts,
The Court sat until 7 o'clock; it being the last day of term.

COEitT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 211.
JUDGMENT.
DAVIS V. THE DANK OF EN'tiLAND.
The Loan CIItErJUSTIcE gave judgment in this import-
ant case. He said that it was a special case, on nn action brought
for refining to pay dividends, and for the tratotfer of stock.—
His Lordship then stated the circumstances of the case, which
-were in substatice—that John Henry Davis' bad forged his
brother's name, and obtained the transfer of 10,0001., in two
sums of 5,0001. and a further stint of 171 U. He was taken up on
the ad March, 18'20, for the forgery, brought before the Lord
Mayor, and subsequently lodged in the CoMpter. While in
'tamtinement, he wrote a letter to Drummond s, the. Bankers,
telling them to pay over all monies in their possession to ilia
brother ; and lie also wrote a draft to his brother on the ail
April tollowing, giving him power to receive all monita on his
account, and also his pay from the Lord Chemberlaitesatitice
Mavis being a Captain of the King's Yeomen of the Guards).
116 'soon after made hit escape from prison, and' his brother
(the plaintiff in, this cue) brought his action against the
Bank of England, for refusing to pay to him the dividends
due on, his stock.. The Bank refused, on the plea that ,the
plaintiff knew of his brother's escape, and was therefore, by
concealing that fact, guilty of misprision of felony. - The
Jury found that the plaintiff' did not know of the forgery
till the sth of March, 1820,' being three months after it was
committed. alsci found a verdict for the defendants,
subject to a special cue. On the .sth of 31arch the plaintiff
went tothe,Compter, and had a conversation with his brother,
who there infOrmed bias that he had transferred over the stock
which stood in his name, on • which the plaintif observed,
!"rhen you have endeavoured to beggar me." His Lord-
' Willi then continued—'Phis 'was an action of thud. The first
count in the declaration stated, that tile plaintiff' was entitled
to 10,000/.'and that the defendants, contrary to their duty, per-
mitted the same to be transferred. Tite third count was like
the tirst. The second count stated that the plaintiff Was pos.
seseed of Consols in the Bank of England. end that they refused
to pay him the dividends due thereon. The fourth*count was
like the /second; The first question for the •Oottrt was—if the
plaintiff property had been transferred The Court thought
Malt had not been transferred, and that be could 'not therefore
have a verdict on the first and third counts. The Court thought
that the Consolidated Annuities being perpetual annuities, were
Vested public property. So were the Lung, Annuities; The
stock was in both these securities, and was transferable, at .the
Bank of England. It was a species of property which could
not be transferred without the consent of the owner, and the
law Comnianded it not to be done without. The Bank of Eng-
land had ne more authority to transfer stock, than had the most
insignificant 'chartered company in the country. The indorse-
ment of the stock wits in the hooks of the Bank, but the Bank
hadno More to do with these indorsements; titan 'With any bill
indorsed. His Lordship then described the old system, of tal-
lies, by, which the transfer was checked. The Act of Parlia-
ment said, that there should he kept in the Batik of England,
books for the transfer of stock, in which die signature of; the
holder should be entered, anti that no letter for Aliti erander of
stock should be good without such signature.--12 Geo. I. cap.
2, sec. 23, and 4 Geo. 111. cap. 19. 'There could be no aaidgn-
meat made withoUt the knowledge of the broker, where one
was engaged; and in the present inetance there was no as.
sigument. The Court was not called on to decide which
of the parties were to endure the loss; they felt that these
circumstances would produce embarrassments lit the Bank,
they thought, 'however, that the liank.should el ember-
reseed rather than that a !stockholder should fitiOr. The
Bank should hava untie inquiries!, and it did not appear that
they had here looked with clue circumspect;ea. The transac-
tion took place' four years ago. . All the damages With -tne
Court could give would not pay the plaintiff for the loss of his
stock; a person would often lose all his property in an 11C-
tion for the recovery of his lost stock, and it might often flap-
pers that a person was not in a condition to bring in action
trout the want of means. A person in the country who minted
to his broker might lose all, as the statute of aimitatlons
might be pleaded against him, before he knew his property
had been tmnferred : and what had lately (Fauntleroy's ease)
showed very clearly, that the . statute of limitations might be
set up against any claim for the recovery of stock; for More
than six years had elapsed before it was discovered. A man
.of the name of Edward Harrison had property in the South
Sea Stock, which had been forged by another of the same
name; the case was brought into Chancery, and Lord Chan-
cellor Hardwick° decided that the plaintiff should have his
stock. 'rite Court was not - called on to inquire whether
the Bank should pay the dividends in the case of fraudulent
acquired stock, but to prevent the alarm of persons who
possess • stock, the Court would say that the Bank could
not refuse to pay the dividends to the subsequent purchasers
of forged stock. The Bank had no right to question the
holder of stock—it had been sufficiently remunerated by the
public for managing the public debt, and was therefore bound
to do it justly. The facilities for the transfer of stock
,was
a strong reason why the Bank should be on its guard.; it
was impossible to trace the property in stock like that in an
estate. The stock in the present case remained itt 'the p lain.
-
tiff's name, anti he had no means of knowing, he did not know
of the forgery until after his brother had quitted the kingdom.
It was contended that the plaintiff could not get any dividends
but those he called for—those due on the 25th of March.
1820—but the Court was of opinion that he could claim all
the dividends for stock standing in his mune. The Conte
agreed with the opinion of Lord Mansfield, that in all ques-
tions of conscience, they were bound to 44 whet was right and
just. It was insisted on by the Counsel for the Bank, that, on
I
the grounds of public policy, the plaintiff should not recover.—
Public policy win a dangerous thing for a Court of ,luatice to
act on. No Judge should act on the principle of public poltcy.
The subject of wagers was an instance at this. Should the
Court act on while policy a man might lose his all. It had
been observed that the plaintiff knew • of the forgery!' and that
as such knowledge. was a misprision of felony, his Delft° the
stock should be forfeited. But that was not so—if he did knew
he would only be subject to fine anti -imprisonment. Vibe Plain-
tiff's right of action had been founded on the forgery, the Court
could nut give judgment in his favour, but it wet founded on
the Bank's refuting- to pay the dividend, and was -therefore
maintainable. The Court knew nothing of forfeitures oat the
ground of public policy. This would be a misdemeanpr. and
not a misprision of felony, if the plaintiff knew or the thrgery.
The Detenilant's Counsel argued that civil actions merged in
felony, where the plaintiff had a pre-knowledge of, the •crime.
If goods were stolen (min a carrier ur an inn-keeper. the owner
could not bring an action against the thief, hut against the car-
rier or innkeeper. Now the Bank of England Stood; peterieely
in the same situation as the carrier or innkeeper, aralwitilbnund
to restore the property: The Jury had expreneffa negative
knowledge of die forgery till three months afterward,. For this
reason the plaintiff was entitled to recover the dividends, on the
second and fourth counts in the declaration, 'refined , by' the
Bank, and which they had improperly refused to pay. '

PLAIN SPEAKING.---A village parson hating its
his sermons taken too high flown a pitch for the coniprehenslars
of auditors, made an apology as follows :—" Respected,
Friends—My oral documents having recently been' the subject
of your vituperation, 1 hope it will not be an instance of vain
eloquence or supererogation if I laconically promulgate, that
avoiding all syllogistical, Aristocratical, and peripatieutp rupo..
sitions, all by a rbtdicul exaggenitions and cumulations, whether
'phys-vditty; philosophically, philologically, politically, or pole-
Tie:illy considered, either in my diurnal peregrinations, Or noc-
turnal laubrations; they shall be definitively and categorically
assimilated into and rendered congenial to, the ucciputa,
Capitol; and cerebrum of you, my most superlatively respectable
.auditors."

llestitir Fistinvv:—Exttact of a latter from
IVick, dated Nov. lb, 1824:—". ¶A, great fishery, that has
taken place thisyear at 'lVicit and the eastern coast of Caithaass
in general, when It has POI touch failed in other places, is a suf.
ticient prOof that i
the herring fishery here s more regular
and 'certain than on any of the neighbouring coasts, or, it a be-
lieyed, in any part of the British dominions. The fact is, that
the herring spawn, piton the east coast of Caithness, where
the AM is' deep', ' well Sheltered, and the shore is in-general
rocky, anti not sandy, where herring 'cannot spawn; and
it is. Only when there is an extruortlinory fecundity of fish,
'that they then spread. to the neighbouring Oasts. Hence
the certainty of a succesitftil fishing on the coastof Caithness.
and of Sutherland, where it joins to Caithnest, which has never
in one instance failed, sines its first commencement on A great
scale, about thirty years agor". . .