The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-27 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1851.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 27.

prisoner,t and ho was caught and secured by a person
who was passing.

(Sittings at Nisi Pries, Guildhall, before the Loan
CHIEF BARON and a Specia Jury.)

The constable who received charge of the prisoner said
the prisoner told him he had not tasted feed for two
days; that seeing the lady coming along with her purse
twisted round her finger, ho made a snatch at it.
The prisoner shed tears, and said ,it was quite true
that he had tasted nothing for two days. He had been
out of work for some time; he had been looking in vairs
forwork all that morning, and knowing it was of no use
to go home, he did attempt to get the lady's purse, as
soon as he saw it in her hand.—Fully committed.

SKIPPER V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

This was an action to recover the value of a mare,
which had died in consequence of injuries received by the
alleged negligence of the defendants while being carried
on their railroad.

Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Willes appeared for the
plaintiff; Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Bovill for the de-
fendants.

Tho contract declared on was that the defendants
were to provide a proper and suitable carriage for the
conveyance of the mare from Wallingford-road station
to London, and to stow her properly and suitably. but
that the plaintiffs were not to be liable for injuries which
might happen in the course of conveyance. The defen-
dants first pleaded that they did not promise ; and
secondly, that they did provide a proper carriage, and
did stow the mare properly and suitably. It appeared
that the mare was placed in a horse-box, in which there
were three compartments, and that in the division
next to that in which the mare was a powerful dray-
horse was placed, both being to all appearances securely
fastened. At the end of the journey it was found that
the dray horse had broken through into the mare's com-
partment, and was standing over her dead body, his
hoofs being covered with blood, and the mare havieg ap-
parently been trampled to death by him.
Upon the completion of plaintiff's case,
Sir F. THESIGER submitted that, inasmuch as the
company were by the contract not liable for injuries oc-
curring in the course of conveyance, there was no case
to go to the jery.
Mr. E. JAMES and Mr. WILLES contended that this
exemption (lid not apply where the defendants had not
taken proper means to secure that which was committed
to their charge.
The LORD CHIEF BARON directed the jury to find a
verdict for the defendants on the general issue, and for
the plaintiff on the issue raised by the second plea.

THE LAW OF LIBEL.
(From the Times.)
The pleasures of grumbling are so great that it
may be doubted, with respect to certain persons,
whether redress be not the last thing in the world
they desire. Give them no compensation for their
grievances, and you deprive them of the solace of
their lives. What would heoome of the farmer
without his perennial misery and his annual appeal
for relief. Ail complaints, however, are not so un-
reasonable. For example, we claim a favourable
place for the one we are ourselves about to prefer,
which, though it may seem at first sight almost
too personal in its character, does, we think, in
reality concern the public as much as ourselves.
The case of " Wilks against Lawson," fur a libel
published in this journal, was tried yesterday at
Guildhall, and resulted in a verdict for the plain-
tiff, with one farthing damages. Unprofessional
readers may require an explanation of this ver-
dict, which reads like a contradiction of itself.
It is the same as if the jury had said—
" The libel was, in fact, published, but the plaintiff
had no right to complain of it." In short, it is the
old Irish verdict in the assault case, where the
prisoner had beyond all question broken the pro-
secutor's head—" Guilty, and served him right."
So far so good,—the smallest coin of the realm is
not much to pay for the liberty of the press ; but
the sting is behind. The costs are to be paid, and
without letting the public into the secret of our
attorney's bill, we may say that the amount is equi-
valent to a heavy fine fur what a jury have pro-
nounced to be no offence. The history of the
case is as follows:--On the 2d of May, 1850,
Wilks was turnkey of Marlborough-street Police-
court, but was absent that day at the time the pri-
soners were brought from the lock-up cells to the
presence of the magistrates. Among these prisoners
was one Hackett, a notorious offender, and another
named Mackenzie. These men when called to appear
were not found, and their fellow-prisoners said they
had been let out by a person whose dress and appear-
ance they particularly described, but whom they
were subsequently unable to identify. An official
inquiry was made into the circumstances of the
escape, upon which Wilks was discharged, and the
deputy turnkey degraded. It appeared that Hackett
when in confinement boasted that he would not long re,
main there, because he had money, and with his fa-
ther's assistance he could make up a sum of twenty
pounds. After this boast, and shortly before the escape,
Wilks was closeted on two occasions with the father and
a woman who cohabited with Hackett, and was also
seen drinking with them. These facts, with many
others which need not be mentioned for our present
purpose, were published in the Times of the 31 of
December, 1850, and our reporter in relating them
used these words :—" The authorities instituted an
inquiry, and it turned out that a turnkey had
received a large sum of money to effect his
liberation." This lithe sentence contained the
libel which the plaintiff declared upon and the de-
fendant denied. The result was as we have stated.
Wilks has gained nothing by his action—not even a
loss, for he sued in forma pauperis ; and we have to
pay a considerable penalty in the shape of costs.
This, then, is our grievance—not ours particularly,
hut that of all the press ; and unless it can be
shown to be quite inevitable, we have a right to
demand redress. The London journal, no matter
under what name it appears, is a daily record of
the world's doings. From the snows of Ross and
Franklin to the Caps of Good Hope, and from China
to Peru, its arms are stretched out to comprehend the
whole human race. In the palace and the police-court,
in the Minister's Cabinet and the Chancellor's study,
among Lords and Commons, on the platform and in the
witness- hox, on'Change and in the merchant's counting-
house—everywhere the " reporter" may be found,
though not seen. And these thousand streams of news
are made to converge to one point once in every 24
hours, and are served up to the public every morning
with their breakfast. To execute such a work with
perfect regularity is no easy task, and at least we may
claim to be offered no impediment in its performance.
Yet, as the law stands, any idle tale of injury to cha-
racter may be trumped up by the most worthless
vagabond, and used as an instrument of vexation
and pecuniary loss against the journalist. Until
the millennium comes he must live perpetually in
hot water. Until every man is as good as he can
be, and no one can possibly have anything to say
against any one else, wo to the newspapers!
Every record of a folly or a crime may call up its
avenger. The uncertificated bankrupt who has
cheated his creditors and filed a schedule with a
balance of nil to pay them with, is the victim of
adverse fate, and brings his action against the
newspaper which dares to say the contrary. No
matter that be is defeated and gets a reproof in•
stead of a verdict. He has no money to pay costs
(except perhaps his attorney's), but the defendant
has, and in that manner he is punished, and so the
end is gained. This is not to be understood as an
appeal ad misericordiam. It is a simple statement of
a fact which concerns the whole press, and, rightly
understood, affects the public quite as much. The
peril of vexatious actions of libel under which the
journalist lies undoubtedly operates to suppress the
truth. Many an act of injustice is unpublished because
the publication would be a libel, and many a sting-
ing truth is unsaid through fear of the law. Lis
not difficult to perceive the real ultimate conse-
quence of this state of things, nor to understand
who are the chief sufferers by it. Nothing is easier
than for us to be silent, but our silence would be
an injury to the public, which would lose one of
its securities against roguery. That we are not al-
ways silent is rather a proof of imprudence than the
performance of a duty; for if the law chooses to
tie our hands, we cannot be expected to work
without them. There is a maxim, often quoted,
and much admired, and we see no reason why it
should not be applied in cases of libel. It is
the motive, they say, which constitutes the crime;
and the motive is to he inferred from the acts of the
accused. Now, in nine cases out of ten of alleged
libels in respectable newspapers, the motive, so far
from being bad, has been obviously and no-
toriously good—the exposure of some roguery,
or the denunciation of some abuse. And yet
this has not and cannot always save the defen-
dants from an adverse verdict, and never
protects them from great expense. Why not ? On
what principle of morality or ground of policy are
men to suffer for doing no wrong—rather, we may
say, for doing right ? Is it for the protection of
private character against the assaults of anonymous
pens ? But it is generally supposed that honest
men suffer when rogues escape, and we are
sure that rogues do escape by reason of this defect of
the law. Or is it by way of police to restrain the
license of the press ? But the restraint, we fear,
operates merely to impose silence upon those who are
not disposed to abuse the liberty of speech ; but it
takes no license from the licentious.

(From the Daily News.)
It is singular that in the course of one week in the
same court, and before the same judge, actions of
libel should have been tried against two of the
morning journals, and that each should have re-
sulted in a verdict of one farthing damages. The
causes of offence which could be measured by
such verdicts, cannot, in the opinion of the juries,
have been large, and, in the case of our contemporary
the Times, against whom the plaintiff sued in forma
pauperis, it can only have been a sense of public duty
which prompted the defence, inasmuch as the costs
must, under any circumstances, have been borne by
them. In the case, of which a report is contained in
this day's paper, the point involved was one of very
considerable importance, not only to ourselves, but to
the entire press. It was the degree of protection
which might be claimed for a bond fide and fair
report of proceedings in a police court. Such reports
have lately formed the chief cheval de bataille for ac-
tions against newspapers, and they have been unduly
dangerous on account of the presumption that if in
such reports there were the least variance from the
actual depositions of the witnesses, even although
the circumstances took place, or the statements
were made, that judicially a libel had been published
and damages must follow, bringing with them
costs in case such damages were estimated at 40s.
The charge of the Lord Chief Justice has now laid
down a rule which, with free protection to the public,
places the press in comparative safety against the
attacks to which they have hitherto been exposed.
Both these points are settled by his observations :
If the publication complained of be a fair ac-
count of proceedings at a police court, then I am
of opinion that in point of law the defendant is en-
titled to your verdict. But if it be a garbled ac
count—if anything be omitted that ought to have
been stated, or much more, if anything be intro•
duced that did not take place—then it is libellous, and
the law will punish it." This doctrine is worthy of
the author of the Act known as Lord Campbell's
Act. The importance of this view to cases, such
as that which was the subject of investigation on
Saturday, is apparent. The formal proceedings in
police courts are necessarily short and hasty. The
magistrate forms his opinion from the statements
made to him whether a summons shall be issued,
and when the parties come before him, much that
takes place is of a conversational character, and
nothing is placed on record beyond what is essential
to sustain ulterior proceedings. And yet it is of the
last importance to the public and to the cause of
public morals that the proceedings at these courts
should be reported, for it is by the fear of exposure
as much as of puldshment that they act as restraints
on the higher and middle classes. The reports of the
infiction of a is. fine on a respectable person found
drunk would be a much greater punishment than the
payment of the fine. And although the report of
which complaint was made in the action tried on
Saturday, may have been painful and distressing to
the parties principally concerned, it must have acted
as a caution to prevent in many other quarters the
mischief which had been done in this instance. If