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

NEWSPAPERS IN CHANCERY.

On Thursday, before Vice-Chancellor Malins, Mr.
toof
the
commitßast Mr.em Morning Williamerning Hivueliti.st,atnhde
p
Hull Advertiser, for a contempt of court in having printed
Grlianstseer, Qn a.dC. p' u movedb she r
and published in a certain number of the said newspaper
an article commenting upon the conduct of Miss Saurin,
the plaintiff in the Hull Convent case, which article con-
sisted of a reprint from the Weekly Register, against
which paper the same proceedings were taken, but were
discontinued on the counsel representing that journal
may
costs.
i.
" an
apology in court and consenting to pay the
c
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 costs 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 receive
letters, one from Mr. Hunt himse, and one from his
solicitors. The letter of the latter aslfked 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), had
a consultation with Mr. Wright, and would have agreed
to settle the matter, but on the same day Mr. Hunt's
ment,
letter,
was received. which it was said repudiated the proposed arrange-
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 Worming .News, stating as it 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 casecarne on forbearing. Mr. Hunt having
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
thei 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 the title 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 MB;
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 reznedy any injury that might
have been inflicted on the plaintiff. The apology was
published in the same paper and in the same type as the
objectionable paragraph.
Mr. Martineau reminded his Honour that LordHatherley,
in the case before
ought not to press for refercosts.red to, had thought that the plaintiff
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 heard of a kind somewhat similar to the
present,
t, but his Honour intimated.(though it was not
assente 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
ae
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 affidavits on the
other side.
It must have been known to Mr. Hunt, he contended,
that the paragraph in the Weekly Register was
one
that
ought not to have been inserted ; and the type in lil
it was printed proved that it was intended tocallspecial attention to it.
thng of the first article
pointed out that hisclient knew no i
Mr. W.Naughten who appeared with Mr. Glasse,

(there were two on the same subject) -which appeared] ili
the Weekly Register, until the second one appeared in the
Eastern Morning News, when attention was directed to it.
The Weekly 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 nothing
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
waalaaeed wag an original one, and not amen extract, and

the court court thought its publication a direct act of contemßt_
In the Tichborne case, the Pall Mall Gazette and the
Morning Post were condemned in the costs of the motion
1.1
because they published original articles combined
comments. The Times and Morning Advertiser only Pint
lished extracts, and Lord Hatherley made no order up?.n..
them as to costs. This arrangement was not come to °Y
the consent of the parties but was the result
.V!
of a long argument before his lordship. The Eastern
Morning News had done what was not done either by xu_.
'
Times or the Morning Advertiser, for the instant that lur
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 Hu";
and sent to London on the 17th, the apology appearing on
the 19th.
Mr. Martineau stated that the editor of the paper
;
had prepared an affidavit, which, however, was not file.
but would be, in which he stated that he had inserted
the paragraph in question inadvertenly from the Weal!
Register, that the name of the paper whence the extract
was male appeared at the bottom, and that what he 1„';
done was constantly done by all newspaper editors. !in,
had no intention to injure Miss Saurin, and had no feeling
either in her favour or against her. No complaint, con.
tinned Mr. Martineau, had been made about the pars'
graph Was
graph until Saturday, the 17th, when Mr. Hun
served with a notice of the present motion by a clerk from
the office of the plaintiff's solicitors. That was the first
On
intimation he had of the grievance complained of.
the 19th Mr. Hunt inserted a full apology.
The Vice-Chancellor asked why, when the article
did
not on the 13th of April, the plaintiff's solicitors l'"
not write to complain. An apology might have been
obtained at once.
Mr. Glasse said that would not have been enough.
Mr. Martineau asked what more could Mr. Hunt liav
(lone than he had ? On the 17th a complaint was made„
to him about the paragraph, and on the 19th he published 03
expression of his regret that the paragraph in question hat
been allowed to appear in his paper. Mr. Hun
b
bad made an affidavit, in which he said that the paragraP
headed " Miss Saurin and the Hull Convent" complained
of by the plaintiff in this suit was published in his news.
paper, called the Eastern Morning News and Hull Adver-
tiser, inadvertently and without comment, having Pr.
viously appeared as a leading article in the Week%
Register. That the name of the newspaper from which
the paragraph was extracted was attached to the para-
graph, when so republished in the Eastern Morning New'
and Hull Advertiser. That a practice prevails univer-
sally in newspaper offices of so republishing matter which
has appeared in other journals, and that opinions of the
press in favour of plaintiff in the action brought by her in
the Court of Queen's Bench have been inserted by him in
the Eastern Morning News and Hull Advertiser.
d
The affidavit continued :—" In republishing the sa'
paragraph, I had no intention or desire whatever to
interfere 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 feeling's
whatever for or against the plaintiff in the said suit-
That no complaint was made to me, or to any person in mY
employ, of the publication of the paragraph in question
until Saturday, the 17th day of April, 1869, on which day,
I was personally served by a clerk from the office 01
Messrs. England, Saxelbye, Roberts, and Sharp, the
plaintiff's solicitors, with a notice of motion to commit me
to prison for contempt of court, and that I should pay °et
costs of the said motion; and that the said notice was the firs
intimation I received that the plaintiff felt herself
aggrieved by the publication of the said paraginPu;
On Monday, the 19th day of April, 1869, the next
day on which the said newspaper, called the Ecistell
Morning News and Hull Advertiser, was published,
inserted in large type and in the most prominent position
in the said newspaper an apology and expression ff
.
regret for the publication of the said paragraP
th
It is not strictly true, as stated in e
affidavit of George Christopher Roberts and Thomas
Rhodes Till, filed in-this cause, that the said.newspa ep r,
called the Eastern Morning News and Hull Advertiser, ill
now conducted as an amalgamation of two newspapers
formerly published in Hull, the one called the Eastern'
Morning News and the other called the Hull Advertiser,
the facts being as follows viz. :—That upon the said„
'
newspaper- called the Hull Advertiser, ceasing to
~."„"
published, the copyright of the said paper, which was t"`"
oldest established newspaper in Hull, and which had been.
established for many years prior to the establishment f!
the Eastern Morning News, the copyright of the Sala
Hull Advertiser was purchased by me at a nominal price.
in order to enable me to use the name of the Rid`
Advertiser as such old-established paper, and for that
purpose only, and that such name is used subor-
dinately to that of the Eastern Morning News'
That no member of the staff of the said Hull Advertiser
was transferred with the copyright of the said Hull
Advertiser, and that only two of the subscribers to the
said Hull Advertiser are now subscribers to the Eastern,
Morning News. I am a member .of the Church
of England, and no member of the Roman
Catholic faith is, to the best of my hnoW-
ledge and, belief engaged in or employed in any capacity
upon the said newspaper, called the Eastern 111ornin9
News and Hull Advertiser ; and the said newspaper
is conducted upon the principles of the Church of Ea'
land. It is not, to the best of my kn°lv.
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 and
Hull Advertiser, has a large or any special circulation
whatever amongst the Roman Catholics of the town
and neighbourhood of Hull. I entirely disavow
the said paragraph of which the plaintiff corn'
plains, and which was originally published in the
Weekly Register and reprinted as an extract in the Eastern,
Morning News and Hull Advertiser, as aforesaid, and the
sentiments therein explained ; and I express to this
honourable court and to Miss Saurin, in the most aniPle
manner, my regret at having republished it, and apologlse
and make my humble submission to this honourable court
for any contempt which I have inadvertently committed.
The learned counsel in referring to the charge made on the
other side, that an application had been made for
affidavits, contended that until his client's solicitors bad
seen these affidavits; it was impossible for him to know
fully what case he had to answer, and he could not, until
he ascertained that, know if the apology lie had insetted
would meet the requirements of the case. He stronglY
urged that the defendant should not be held liable for the
costs.

The Vice-Chancellor said that the article in question,
which originally appeared in the Weekly Register, and wos
copied into the Eastern Morning News, was clearly oft_a
most serious Character, and was entirely unjustifiable.
one paper brought before him, viz.,the Weekly Register, ha
felt this, and had made submission to the court and apolo-
- to Miss Sarnia, and would pay the costs of the motion-
With regard to the proprietor of the Eastern Olorning
News, he was in a very different position. He had only
inserted the article as a reprint from the Weekly Register'
in accordance with the practice which prevailed in London
and the provinces of giving as extracts from other papers such
items as were of special or general interest. It was, however;
right that editors of newspapers should know that they conic'
not insert in their papers articles which it was improper
should appear in the first instance, except at their own risk.:
In the present case Mr. Hunt had not been actuated by any
improper motives, and when the matter complained of Was
brought to his notice had acted in a manner highly
becoming a gentleman, though in publishing the pal?"
graph from the 'Weekly Register, headed "Miss Saurnl
and the Hull Convent," he had used less discretion
than be should have done. He should therefore make 510
order against Mr. Hunt, except that the respondent (1°
pay costs of application other than costs of any affi-
davits sworn since Saturday, the 17th of April, 1869.