The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-23 00:00:00

NEWSPAPERS IN CHANCERY.

On Thursday, before Vice-Chancellor Matins, Mr.
Glasse, Q.C., moved to commit Mr. William Hunt, the
printer and publisher of the Eastern Morning News and
Hall Advertiser, for a contempt of court in having printed
and published in a certain number of
_the said newspaper
an article commenting upon the conduct of MissSaurin,
the plaintiff in the Hull Convent case, which article con-
sisted of a reprint, from the Wcekly Register, against
which paper the same proceedings were taken, but were
discontinued on the counsel representing that journal
I ing an apology in court and consenting to pay the
costs.
Mr. Glasse was about to open the case against Mr. Hunt
' with a statement of the facts, when
Mr. Martineau, who appeared for the defendant, inti-
mated that he was prepared on the part of Mr. Hunt to
make proper submission to the court and to offer
an
apology, as he had already done in his paper, to Miss.
Saurin for the paragraph in question having been
inadvertently inserted from the Weekly Register. He
argued that having done this, if the dictum of Lord
Hatherley in the Tichborne case was to be followed, Mr.
'Hunt ought not to be liable for the costs. An affidavit,
made by Mr. Hunt giving his version of the matter, had
been prepared.
Mr. Glasse complained that Mr. Martineau's client had
asked for copies of affidavits on the other side, after the
statement referred to had been inserted in the paper.
The Vice-Chancellor said, looking at the case that had
been alluded to before Lord Hatherley, he thought it was
rather by consent that costs were not pressed for. His
Honour went on to intimate that he was of opinion that
the case might be settled by its being arranged that there
should be no costa paid by the defendant after the time of
applying for the affidavits.
Mr. Martineau said he would be satisfied with that
arrangement.
In reply to the Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Martineau stated
that as soon as complaint was made about the paragraph
an apology was published.
Mr. Glasse disputed this, and proceeded to say that on
the same day on which the so-called apology was inserted
in the paper the solicitors of his client received two
letters, one from Mr. Hunt himself, and one from his
solicitors. The letter of. the latter asked for copies of the
affidavits in the case, and offered to pay for them. Upon
receipt of this, the learned counsel said, Mr. Roberts (of
the firm of England, Saxelbye, Roberts, and Sharp), bad
a consultation with Mr. 'Wright, and would have agreed
to settle the matter, but on the same day Mr. Hunt's
letter, which it was said repudiated the proposed arrange-
ment, was received.
Mr. Martineau here intimated that Mr. Hunt's letter
had reference to another action altogether.
•Mr. Glasse contended that the result of the paragraph in
the Eastern Vorning News, stating :wit did that Miss Saurin
was actuated in the proceedings she had taken by motives
of malice, and by a wish to injure Catholicism in Hull,
would materially increase her difficulty in getting wit-
nesses when the case came on forbearing. Mr. Hunthaving
thought fit to put the plaintiff at arm's length, ought to
pay the costs.
The Vice-Chancellor : Do you press for costs?
Mr. Glasse replied that he did.
In answer to the Vice-Chancellor,Mr. Martineau stated
that an apology had been published at the earliest possible
moment, in the most conspicuous part of the paper, and in
large type. It would be seen by reference to the news-
paper that it contained paragraphs both in favour of and
against the plaintiff, Its extracts were impartial.
The Vice-Chancellor thought it was hardly worth while
to prolong the matter.
Mr. Glasse: however, urged his Honour to look at the
paper containing the paragraph complained of. It was
:.put, he said, in a conspicuous position, and it was printed
in large type and was headed, " Miss Saurin and the Hull
Convent. His Honour would observe that other para-
graphs quoted from other paperS, under thetitle of "Spirit
of the Press," appeared in a very different type. The
learned counsel complained that after the injury likely
to be inflicted on the plaintiff had been pointed out, the
defendant had set his lawyers to work in the matter.
Mr. Martineau said the other side offered their affi-
davits.
The Vice-Chancellor again expressed the opinion that
the matter had better end. The defendant seemed to have
done all that he could to reniedy• any injury that might
have been inflicted on the plaintiff. The apology was
published in the same paper and in the same t
objectionable para-graph. ype as the
Mr. Martineau reminded his Honour that LordHatherl ey,
in the case before referred to, had thought that the plaintiff
ought not to press for costs.
The Vice-Chancellor remarked that that was what he
was rather inclined to say.
Mr. Glasse then called attention to a case which had
recently been beard of a kind somewhat similar to the
present, but his Honour intimated (though it was not
assented to by Mr. Glasse) that in that instance, at all
events as regarded one of the papers implicated, certain
comments had been made upon the case which was before
the court, as well as documents, likely to prove detrimental,
published.
Mr. Glasse proceeded to argue as an additional
reason that the defendant should be made to pay the costs
that on the same day on which he published the apology
his solicitors wrote asking for allidavits on the other side.
It must have been known to Mr. Hunt, he contended,
that the paragraph in the Weekly Register was onethat
ought not to have been inserted; and the type inwhich
it was printed proved that it was intended to call special
attention to it.

Mr. M`Naughten, who appeared with Mr. Glasse,
pointed out that his client knew nothing of the first article
(there were two on the same subject) which appeared in
the Weekly Register, until the second one appeared in the
Eastern Morning News, when attention was directed to it.
The Wcekly Register was a high•priced Catholic paper, pub.
lished in London, and having only a Small circulation in
the provinces. The Eastern Morning News was a penny
paper, having a large circulation in Hull. Than the tone
of the libel contained in. the paragraph copied nailing
could be more objectionable.

Mr. Martineau, in addressing the court in opposition to
the application for costs, pointed out that the cases to
which .Mr. Glasse had called attention were clearly dis-
tinguishable from the present. In the Cheltenham
Waggon case, the article upon which the motion to commit
was based was an original one, and not a mere extract, and

the court thought its publication a direct act of contempt'
In the Tichborne case, the Pall Mall Gazette and the
Morning Post were condemned in the costs of the motion
because they published original articles combined with
comments. The Times and Morning Advertiser only pub'
lished extracts, and Lord Hatherley made no order 1113°3
bY
them as to costs. This arrangement was not come -to t
the consent of the 'parties but was the result
of a long argument before his lordship. The Rote?
Morning News had clone what was not done either by the
Times or the Morning Advertiser, for the instant that Mr.
Hunt learnt that the paragraph was complained of he pre-
pared and published the apology.
In answer to the ,Vice-Chancellor, it was stated that
the affidavits on the plaintiff's side were sworn at Bull
and sent to London on the 17th, the apology appearing. on
the 19th.
Mr. Martineau stated that the editor of the PaPe;
had prepared an affidavit, which, however, was not filead
but would be, in which he stated that he had inserts.
the paragraph in question inadvertenly from the Weal!!
Register, that the name of the paper whence the
extract
was made appeared at the bottom, and that what he II;
'
clone was constantly done by all newspaper editors.
had no intention to injure Miss Saurin, and had no
either in her favour or against her. No complaint, con-
tinned Mr. Martineau, had been made about the par
,graph until Saturday, the 17th, when Mr. Hunt W 3
served with a notice of the present motion by a clerk froll!
the office of the plaintiff's solicitors. That was the iir_r
intimation he had of the grievance complained of.
the 19th Mr. Hunt inserted a full apology.
The Vice-Chancellor asked why, when the article
appeared on. the 13th of April, the plaintiff's solicitors did
not write to complain. An apology might have been
obtained at once.

Mr. Glasse said that would not have been enou4h. „
Mr. Martineau asked what more could Mr. Hunt hay,
done than he had ? On the 17th a complaint was mai;
to him about the paragraph, and on the 19th lie published t 1
expression of his regret that the paragraph.in question 113`,.
been allowed to appear in his paper. Mr. WM,"
bad made an affidavit, in which he said that the paragraN
headed " Miss Saurin and the Hull Convent" complained
of by the plaintiff in this suit was published in his new
s•
called the Eastern Morning News and _Hull Adver•
tiser, inadvertently and without comment, having Pre-
viously appeared as a leading article in the iVeely
Register. That the name of the newspaper from Nvm"'„,
the paragraph was extracted was attached to the Par;
graph, when so republished in the Eastern illorning Aret.
and Hull Advertiser. That a practice prevails univel
sally in newspaper offices of so republishing matter vvlll.l
has appeared in other journals, and that opinions of the
press in favour of plaintiff in the action brought by her
,111
the Court of Queen's Bench have been inserted by him 111
the Eastern Morning News and Hull Advertisq
The affidavit continued :—" In republishing the sa3
paragraph, I had no intention or desire whatever to
intertere with the course of justice in this suit, or to
create a prejudice against the plaintiff, or to prevent her..
obtaining evidence in support of her case, or to do her
any injury whatever ; and I entertain no feelin.ls
.
whatever for or against the plaintiff in the said stn
That no complaint was made to me, or to any person in in 9
employ, of the publication of the paragraph in questiol_
until Saturday, the 17th day of April, 1869, on which da:f,
I was personally served by a clerk from the office
Messrs. England, Saxelbye, Roberts, and Sharp, the
plaintiff's solicitors, with a notice of motion to commit 114
to prison for contempt of court, and that should paY
costs of the said motion; and that the said notice was the
T:
intimation I received that the plaintiff felt hers
aggrieved by the publication of the said paragrallat
On Monday, the 19th day of April, 1869, the nex...
day on which the said newspaper, called the Easteilit
Morning News and Hull Advertiser, was published:
insei ted in large type and in the most prominent position
in the said newspaper an apology and expression 2f
regret for the publication of the said paragraph®
It is not strictly true, as stated in
affidavit of George Christopher Roberts and Thonills
Rhodes Till, filed in this cause, that the said newspaper'
called the Eastern Morning News and Hull Advertiser, 1;
now conducted as au amalgamation of two newspapers
formerly published in Bull, the one called the Easter
'Morning News and the other called the Hull Advertisq.4
the facts being as follows,. viz. :—That upen the sate
newspaper, called the Hull Advertiser, ceasing to
published, the copyright of the said paper, which was theoldest established newspaper in Hull, and which had been
established for many years prior to the establishment f'a
the Eastern. Morning News, the copyright of the
Hull Adrertiser was purchased by me at a nominal priced
in order to enable me to use the name of the If°
Advertiser as such old-established paper, and for Oar!
purpose only, and that such name is used 5.,.111)°5.
dinately to that of the Eastern Morning ivele
That no member of the staff of the said Hull Adrertiser
• l 1 was transferred with the copyright of the saulil 11
Advertiser, and that only two of the subscribers to tl.le
said Kull Advertiser are now subscribers to the Fastei
Morning News. I am a member of the Church
of England, and no member of the Roma°.
Catholic faith is, to the best of my kill;
ledge and, belief engaged in or employed in any caPacl'
upon the said newspaper, called the Eastern Morning
r
News and Hull Aclrertiser ; and the said newspaPe.
is conducted upon the principles of the Church of El'
land. It is not, to the best of my kil°l.:t
ledge and belief, true, as stated in the affidavit
of the said G. C. Roberts, and T. R. Till, that the
said newspaper, called the Eastern Morning News aa_.
Hull Advertiser, has a large or any special circulatioa
whatever amongst the Roman Catholics of the tow
and neighbourhood of Hull. I entirely disaY"w
the said paragraph of which the plaintiff el;
plains, and which was originally published in t'
Weekly Register and reprinted as an extract in the Essllle
Morning News and Hull Advertiser, as aforesaid, and
sentiments therein explained ; and I express to this
honourable court and to Miss Saurin, in the most
manner, my regret at having republished it, and apologl
humble make my mnble submission to this honourable col;',,
for any contempt which I have inadvertently committeui
The learned counsel in referring to the char.-0 made on t€
I,e.
other side, that an application had been made I°Li
affidavits, contended that until his client's solicitors b,
seen these affidavits, it was impossible for him to kri°;:i
fully what case he had to answer, and he could not, 1,111,
"a
he ascertained that, know if the apology he had inseite
would meet the requirements of the case. He stronalY
urged that the defendant should not be held liable for ale
costs.

The Vice Chancellor said that the article in questior;
which orginally appeared in the Wally Register, and V,
copied into the Eastern Morning- News, was clearly (1,1.10
most serious character, and was entirely unjustifiable. -1,0
one paper brought before him, viz. ,the Weekly Register, 010
felt this, and had made submission to the court and are'
gised to Miss Saurin, and would pay the cost s of the Inot1?1
1.
With regard to the proprietor of the Eastern Morning
.Arcw.R, be was in a very different position. He had 011.
inserted the article as a reprint from the Weekly Registe4
;,
in accordance with the practice which prevailed in Lonu'h
and the provinces of giving as extracts from other papers s'or,
items a s were of special or general interest. It was, howevja
right that editors of newspapers should know that they Nu t
not insert in their papers articles which it was irnproPt
should appear in the first instance, except at their own rie".
In the present case Mr. Hunt had not been actuated byav's
improper motives, and when the matter complained of 'lli
brought to his notice had acted in a manner
becoming a gentleman, though in publishing the Pa..,1.11
graph from the Weekly Register, headed " Miss Sallvo
and the Hull Convent," he had used less discretion
than he should have done. He should therefore make /(110
order against Mr. Hunt, except that the respondent fo.
pay costs of application other than costs of any a
davits sworn since Saturday, the 17th of April, 1869.