The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-09 00:00:00

the publication had taken place.

Mr. James Peddie, the

sub-editor, came to him from Scotland with the highest
testimonials ; and he had every reason to believe he was
_ _

thoroughly careful and trustworthy. Mr. Peddie was no
longer in his service, but at the trial at Leeds he stated
that he. alone was responsible for the publi-

cation of the libel. He expressed his sincere
regret that through the act of another person, whom he
(Mr. Leng) bad every reasoi to trust, this calumny should
have been so published. He .threw himself upon the
clemency of the Court, and trusted they would take into
account the prolonged anxiety and very great expense to
which he had been subjected throughout these protracted
proceedings.
On the Master proceeding to read the affidavit of Mr.
John Holmes, the manager of the paper,
The Lord Chief Justice asked if any proceedings had
been taken against the person who was really responsible
for this libel, the sub-editor?
The Solicitor-General: None, my lord.
The Lord Chief Justice : I was ill when the rule was
made absolute. I certainly was not aware that an apology
of the description read had been made to Lord and Lady
Sefton. Did the question arise at the trial that a man
who merely did a thing through his servant may be said
to have done it maliciously ?
The Solicitor-General : The Lord Chief Baron put it
that, as a matter of law, Mr. Leng was responsible.
The Lord Chief Justice : But not when a servant has
done a thing in direct contravention of a master's
authority. The master may be responsible for his
servants' acts ; but when it becomes a matter of malice it is
another thing.
The Solicitor-General : The jury found Mr. Leng guilty
on the ground that two or three copies of the paper were
sold after his attention had been called to the libel, and
because he had not given a distinct order that no copy on
any account should pass out of his offices.
The Lord Chief Justice : Wo have no doubt that Mr.
Leng knew nothing about the libel until he saw it in the
paper the next morning.
Sir John Karslake said he should leave the matter in
their lordships hands, but he should have to refer to the
apology mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice. A great
deal had been said of the complete apology to Lord and
Lady Sefton published, but nothing was said in it of Lord
Sefton. It was only an apology as far as the Prince of
Wales was concerned.
The Lord Chief Justice : Mr. Leng gave an explanation
for not inserting Lord Sefton's name, which may or
may not be satisfactory. Do I understand that the
matter went to the jury on those particular papers sold ?
The present statute removes the responsibility from the
master if no malice is proved on his part, for it must be
proved that the publication was made with his authority
and consent before a conviction can be procured. But
for the papers having been sold from the pigeon holes
there would have been nothing to justify the finding of the
ice•
The Solicitor-General said that was so. The Lord Chief
Baron left it to the jury to say whether Mr. Leng had
used due care and caution to suppress the publication of
the papers sold on the Bth and 14th of April ; so that
it went to the jury only on the three or four papers sold
from the pigeon-holes. The average daily circulation of
the paper was about 8,000.
The Lord Chief Justice : If this case had gone before
the jury upon the publicaticn of the 8,000, then the defen-
dant was not guilty.
The Solicitor-General : It comes to that.
Sir John Karslake said some nice question of law might
arise as to Mr. Leng's responsibility for the act of Mr.
Peddie, the sub-editor, but he did not think it necessary
to go into that because the publication was on the Bth and
14th April.
The Lord Chief Justice : Is it really a fact that the
prosecution relied upon the publication on the Bth and 14th
of two or three copies? _ _

Sir John Karslake : No, my lord, not so far as I was
concerned.

The Lord Chief Justice : I am very glad to find that it
was not.

The Lord Chief Justice remarked that it was not neces-
sary to go into all the affidavits.
The Solicitor-General then put in affidavits as to cha-
racter from Mr. Roebuck, M.P..; and affidavits from the
Mayor of Sheffield, and magistrates, and distinguished
individuals, including the Archbishop of York, the Duke
of Devonshire, Lord Wharncliffe, and Earl Fitzwilliam,
were put in as to the character of the. Sheffield Telegraph
paper. _

- -
The Lord Chief Justice said they could not hear the
addresses on behalf of the defendant in mitigation ; and
they must confine themselves to speeches from the learned
counsel for the defendant.

The Solicitor-General then addressed the Court in
mitigation of sentence. He regretted very much that
such a distinguished nobleman as Lord Sefton should
bring Mr. Leng up for judgment after an ample and suffi-
cient apology had been given to Lord and Lady Sefton. The
learned counsel then went into the circumstances of the
publication. As soon as Mr. Lang knew that there was
no foundation for the rumour, he rebuked in strong terms
his sub-editor, and he did everything he could do to
atone for the offence of a subordinate for which no
doubt it might be that he was legally responsible. But,
still, when it came to be a question of criminal responsi-
bility, it was a totally different matter. Mr. Leng gave
orders that the sale of the copies of the paper should be
prevented. The papers that were sold on . the Bth
and 14th were taken from pigeon holes, where
they were only kept for reference by solicitors and others.
They were not kept for general sale. So far as Mr. Leng
was concerned he stood scatheless in the matter. The
thing was done in his absence, contrary to his authority
and his general instructions, and in a way which Mr. Leng
could not possibly have foreseen. As to Mr. Leng's apology
in the paper not mentioning the names of Lord and Lady
Sefton, his reason for not doing that was be-
cause he thought it would be more consonant to the
feelings of Lord and Lady Sefton if their names were left
out ; in fact, the least said about it the better. He (the
learned counsel) admitted that, looked at from the reflected
light now thrown upon it, it would have been better to
have mentioned the names of Lord and Lady Sefton;
but still many persons would have considered
that the apology was complete without them. If Mr. Leng
had shewn any desire to adhere to the malignant state-
ment thus he (the learned counsel) admitted that he would
be responsible for it. But he could not be held respon.
sible for an error of judgment on the part of his servant
with which he (Mr. Leng) had nothing to do.
Mr. Leng had ahem n great courage in exposing the
rattening system at Sheffield ; and he had thereby endan-
' gered his life. A testimonial had been presented to him
for the part he took in exposing these Sheffield outrages,

which were the terror of its inhabitants. With respect to
this particular libel, he was willing to adi kit that Mi.
Leng did not do all that he could do to suppress the pub-
lication of the libel; that was to say, he had neglected
to put a stop to the sale of those papers
in the pigeon-holes. He (the learned c mnsel) was
very sorry that Lord and Lady Sefton were not satisfied
with the apology, but had gone so far as to put Mr. Leng
to the expense and misery consequent upon their getting
a conviction against him, and then to bring him up for
judgment. In conclusion Ike trusted that their lordships
would pass the lightest possible sentence upon the
defendant.

Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., followed on the same
side; and called the attention of the Court to ,the
Act Gth and 7% Vic., for amending the law of libel
and read the following clause :—" Be it enacted that
whensoever upon the trial of any indictment and informa-
' tion for the publication of a libel under the plea of not
guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall estab-
lish a presumptive case of publication against the defend-
ant by the act of any other person by his authority, it
shall be competent for such defendant to prove that
such publication was made without his authority, eon-
sent, or knowledge, and that the said publication did
not arise from want of due care or caution on his part."
The other side, he contended, had taken advantage of a
mere technical point in making the sale of two or three
papers, the publication of the paper to comply with the
Act.

Sir John Kerslake, havingaddressed the Court on be-
half of Lord and Lady Sefton to justify their prosecuting
the defendant,
• Their Lordships adjourned ; and on their return to
Court,
Mr. Justice Mellor delivered the following judgment.
He said : Mr. Leug, you have been convicted on a
criminal information for libel of a very serious character,
but whilst I say that I cannot but express my regret—
a regret that I am bound to say is shared by every member
of the court—that we have to pass sentence on
a gentleman who has hitherto borne a high character,
and has made use of the power of the press
for purposes which everybody must approve, yet, at the
same time, in this case the libel which was inserted in
your paper was one of a most serious character as affect-
ing the reputation, the happiness, and comfort of the .
Earl and Oovntess of Sefton. We are satisfied
that it was inserted without your knowledge,
and that you were not iu any respect a con-
senting party to the insertion of that paragraph
and that you were really unacquainted with it until you
read it in your paper in the course of the following day,
about eleven or twelve o'clock. We are also satisfied that
when it came to your knowledge you remonstrated, and
reproved your sub-editor for inserting so gross a libel upon
the Earl and Countess of Sefton. And I can only say
that we regret that, instead of your being the person
called up for sentence in this case, we have
not the real person before us. Had he
.been the person prosecuted, not only would we have
meted out to him such a sentence as would tend to put a
stop to the concoction of startling paragraphs and sensa-
tional announcements, but one that would have been
commensurate punishment for the publication of a very
serious libel affecting in the highest degree the comfort of
a lady of the rank and reputation .of .the Countess of
Sefton. In coming to the consideration of what ought to
be the sentence passed upon you, we think that although
you may have acted to the best of your judgment, you
did not take steps which to ordinary minds seem to
have been the most appropriate stops to stop
the sale of the newspapers containing this libel,
but that you allowed your office to be used for the sale of
those papers to anyone who chose to come and ask for
them. At the same time, we must take it that the jury
must have believed that, had it rested only upon the early
publication, they would, upon that evidence,
have probably found you not guilty of publishing the
libel. The affirmative proof of publication would have
been entirely rebutted when the truth came
to be known ; but, in addition to what
occurred afterwards, we think that the jury
were justified, and that the verdict was justified by
what you did after the thing came to_ our knowledge.
You did nothing on the sth o April. You were to blame
in not taking the earliest possible opportunity of sup-
pressing the libel after its concoction came to your notice.
We are assured that the justice of the case will be satis-
fied by the infliction upon you of a fine—and a fine
extremely moderate in its amount, because we cannot
shut our eyes to the circumstances which have been
urged in mitigation ; and it was a point for the
consideration of the earl and countess, to consider how far
the proceedings would shew and let it be known that there
was not a particle of pretence or foundation for the libel
which has appeared. Under all the circumstances we
think that the justice of the case will be satisfied by in-
flicting a fine upon you of £5O.
The defendant then left the court.

MOSE-, and OIS'S
•

"W INTER OVERCOATS, 19s, to £5.

BOY'S OVERCOATS, 7s. 6d. to 455.