The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-24 00:00:00

-g
Fri. Crynnetti, near Bala
Tine,EarlPortsmouth'sMon. Three Legged Cross

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
'Sittings in Banco before Lord Campbell, and Justices
Coleridge, Wightman, and Crompton.)
DAVISON V. DUNCAN AND ANOTHER.

This case came before the court upon a demurrer to
the defendants' plea.
Mr. Manisty, in support of the demurrer, stated that
the action was brought to recover damages for a libel
pubiished by the defendants respecting the plaintiff in
the Durham County Advertiser. The article in question
was headed " West Hartlepool Improvement Commis-
sioners," and purported to be a report of certain pro-
ceedings and a discussion which bad taken place at such
meeting respecting a license alleged to have been granted
by the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Maltby) to a Rev. J. H.
Barges to act as chaplain to the cemetery. The learned
counsel read the report, which showed that the dis-
cussion was of an angry and abusive character.
Several of the commissioners alleged that the
liceric3 was " a clumsy device o❑ the part of Mr. Joseph
Davison (the ilaintiff), and that it was discovered by the
bishop." Another commissioner said, "it would appear
that the whole proceeding was a fraud upon the bishop
as well as spoil the public." Another said, "it was a
great scandal upon the Church ;" while a third said,
" I don't see that. It is, in my opinion, merely a scan.
dal upon Mr. Joseph Davison, the late bishop's secre.
tary" (meaning the plaintiff). At the close of the dis-
cussion the commissioners resolved ueanimonsly—
" That the commissioners do not admit the necessity of
any such document, and, being now informed that the
bishop himself repudiates it, decline to recognise its va-
►idity. To this declaration the defendants pleaded that
the said meeting of the said Hartlepool Improvement
Commissioners in the said libel mentioned was held as
therein stated, and the same was a public meeting of the
commissioners, acting under the powers of the West
Hartlepool Improvement Act 1854, and was held for
the purpose of putting that act into execution. It then
alleged in substance that the article complained of was
a just, true, faithful, correct, and accurate report of the
proceedings which took place at the said meeting, and
that there was no malice on the defendants' part in
printing or publishing the same. To this plea the plain-
tiff demurred, and thus raised the question whether tke
defendants were justified in publishing a true and faith.
ful report of the defamatory speeches spoken at the
meeting of the said West Hartlepool Commissioners.
Lord Campbell said the plea would formerly have
been held bad on special demurrer, as amounting to the
general issue.
Mr. Manisty said— The p!antiff alleged that the
charges were false, and that the question was whether
newspapers were to be at liberty to publish false state-
ments made at such meetings. The ca-e was not like
that of a report of proceedings in a court of justice,
vhdre the parties were present. The plaintiff alleged
that the libel was false from beginning to end. The
speakers Stook the opportunity of making statements
which were not founded in fact.

Lord Campbell said the plea denied that the defen
dents had any malice.
Mr. Manisty said that was so ; but the question was
whethereeches
made
es openat
t such to
taneeewtsiapgasp.ers to publish h reports of
sp
• Lord Campbell—Was this a meeting a 4 which the
public had a right to be present I A good deal might
depend on that.
Mr. Manisty said the public had no right to be present;
the act was only a local improvement act. It was an act
for paving, lighting, watching, draining, cleansing, regu-
lating, and otherwise improving the town of West Har-
tlepool, &c., and for providing a cemetery, and for other
purposes.
It appointed commissioners whom it incorpo-
rated, with power to make rates for carrying out the act.
Lord Campbell said that, as the commissioners had
power to do acts and to levy rates, all the inhabitants of
West Hartlepool would have a right to be present. For
what purpose were they assembled when thedebltte arose?
Mr. Manisty said it did not appear. The plea merely
said there we, a meeting of the commissioners acting under
the powers of the act, and for the purpose of putt:og the
act in execution. The learned counsel proceeded to con-
tend that, though the courts allowed reports of proceed-
ings in courts of justice where the proceedings were not ex
parte, the law had never been extended to eases like the
present. The cases were all collected in the case of
Hoare T. Silverlock" (9 C. 8., 20), in which it was
held that in an action for libel it was a good defence
that the article complained of was a fair report of a pro.
ceeding in a court of justice, the proceeding not being ex
parte. Mr. Justus Maule said, "I think it is mpossible
to bay that a fair account of proceeding in a court of jus-
tice not being ex parte, but in the hearing of both sides,
is not, generally speaking, a justifiable publication.
Matters may appear in a court o justice that have so
immoral a tendency, or be so injurious to the character
of an individual, that their publication could not be tole-
rated. But, as a general rule, it may be assumed that the
publication of a fair account of what passes in a court of
justice not exparte is justifiable, unless there is something
to take it out of that rule.
Mr. Unthank, who appeared in support of the plea,
said the question now was whether 4 air report of what
took place at a meeting of commissioners, and without
malice, was a privileged communication.
Lord Campbell said that nearly 10 years ago it was
proposed to the Legislature to pass an act to render that
lawful which was not so before, but it. did not extend to
public meetings. His lordship spoke in a very low tone
of voice, but we understood his lordship to refer to this
circumstance to show that the distinguished persons who
had considered the subject did not consider that the pri-
vilege extended to reports of public meetings.
Mr. Justice Wightman said—Suppose the case of a
public meeting on the subject of the income tax, and
some very strong observations made I
Mr. Unthank said a public; meeting would have no
power over such a question.
Lord Campbell laughed, and appeared to signify dis-
sent from that proposition.
Mr. Justice Wightman—Suppose the editor said he
published a correct report of what passed ?
Mr. Justice Crompton—Suppose a speaker makes
some strong observations upon a collector /
Lord Campbell—Or that the Chancellor is charged
with robbing the Exchequer, and that thereby the neces-
sity for the income tax arises ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Unthank contended there was a difference be-
tween that case and the present, where commissioners
were appointed by act of Parliament who had the power
to tax the subject to the extent of 2s. 6d. in the pound
on all property rated to the poor rate.
Mr. Justice Crompton said—Suppose it had been the
case of a railway meeting, how were her Majesty's
subjests beyond Hartlepool interested ?
Mr.,Unthank said the question was one of great
importance, as similar bodies were now constituted all
over the country. The commissioners in this case had
every conceivable power, including power to construct
baths, cemeteries, &c., and to borrow money to the
extent of 26,000/. It was therefore of the highest im-
portance that their meetings should be open to the pub-
lic, and their proceedings reported in the newspapers,—
as much so as that the proceedings in this court should
be reported. It had been decided that an advertisement
inserted in a newspaper respecting something lost was
not libellous, though it might criminate some one.
Lord Campbell—You are now contending for the right
to give a fair and full report of what takes place.
Mr. Unthank admitted that more might have taken
place than was irrelevant.
Lord Campbell—We 'assume that it was a public
meeting. Do you assert that a fair report of what takes
place in a public meeting may be reported in the news-
papers 1
Mr. Unthank said he did, the same as the proceedings
of a pelice.court or court-martial. All the cases were
brought before the court in " Stockdale v. Hansard "
(9 A. E. 97).
Lord Campbell intimated that there was no case to
support the learned counsel's proposition.
Mr. Unthank said that since that case was decided
these local authorities had been established all over the
country.

Lon-1
Campbell—Then all that takes place in a vestry
meeting may be published ? His lordship here referred
to the case of Lord Abingdon, who made a speech
against his steward, and afterwards maliciously pub-
lished the libel.

Mr. Justice Wightman—You must assume that the
speaker speaks maliciously, and that the reporter states
what passed.

Mr. Unthank said that would apply to what took
place in a court of justice.
Mr. Justice Crompton said the question was whether
the privilege was to be extended —whether a reporter
might publish every inflammatory charge I
Lord Campbell—There is a difficulty in deciding what
is done bona fide and what maliciously.
Mr. Unthank—That would apply to a report of a pro
ceeding in a court of justice.
Lord Campbell—But that is in the presence of the
judges, and they are answered by the other side.
After a short conference with the other judges,
Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that, as the law
now stood, the plea was bad. As the law now stood a fair
account of what took place in a court of justice was privi-
leged, if made bona fide. The public had great interest
in knowing what took place in courts of justice, and what
passed there was under the control of the judges, and the
inconvenience which arose from allowing that privilege
was infinitesimally small compared with the benefit which
was conferred upon the public. But when an attempt
was made by the Legislature to extend that privilege it
had failed, and till now in a court of justice the doctrine
had never been contended for. It might be desirable that
the doctrine should be extended, but without some gua
rantees for the protection of private character he (Lord
Campbell) thought such
publications ought not to be
permitted. If the plea were good, a fair account might
be published of what took place at a public meeting, what-
ever injury it might do to private character, from a meet.
ing of the county down to a meeting of a tlwn council—
a meeting to levy a rate, •r for the removal of a pauper.
At such meetings there might be a great number of
things said extremely injurious to private character, and
if such a plea an the present were a defence there would
be no opportunity for the party to vindicate his character
from the aspersions cast upon it. If the Legislature sa w
fit, it might extend the privilege to certain meeti.aga
under certain qualifications. But the Court had s,o de-
cide according to the law as it now stood, and he (Lord
Campbell) felt bound to give judgment for the pl.aintiff.
Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Wightman
expressed themselves to the same effect, and
Mr. Justice Crompton said he was entirely of the same
opinion for the same reasons
Judgment for the plaintiff.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
DESBOROUGH V. MIDGLEY—BREACII OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Chart ock appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. James and Mr. 11. Jaw us
were counsel fur the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a sem An t
maid, 21 years of age, to recover eompeneation in dh Arr,.