The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 6.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. COCKBURN AND ANOTHER-
CONSPIRACY.

This was an indictment for conspiracy to in-
jure the credit of the Bank of London. The
defendants were William Cockburn, the proprietor
of the Joint-Stock Companies Journal, and Wm.
John Lawson, who had formerly b3en employed
as a clerk at the City of Loudon Union, St.
Mary-axe, and had been mixed up with the other
defendant in writing for the journal and correcting
proofs. There was another indictment against
Cockburn for libel, but the prosecutors proceeded
in the first instance with the one charging a con-
spiracy.
Mr. E. James, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Turner
conducted the prosecution ; and Cockburn was
defended by Mr. lorry, and Lawson by Mr. D.
Seymour.
The alleged libel out of which these proceedings
arose appeared in the columns of the Joint-Stock
Companies' Journal on the 18th of April. It
adopted the assertions contained in an article pub-
lished in the Atlas newspaper tending bo shake the
credit of the bank, and went on to state that the
denials which the directors had given to those asser-
tions were not to be relied upon, and to insinuate
certain doubts as to the moral character of the
directors and to the solvency of the company. The
article also charged the directors with fraudulently
misappropriating the funds of the bank.
The circumstances of the case have been fre-
quently before the public, and it is unnecessary.
therefore, to repeat them at any length.
Mr. lorry addressed the jury for Cockburn, and
contended that the alleged libel came within the
category of a fair and reasonable criticism by a pub-
lic journal on a public company, and that it was
not written with the malicious intent of injuring
the bank further than the conduct of the directors
warranted.

Mr. Digby Seymour, on behalf of Lawson, dis-
claimed any intention on the part of his client to
attack the moral character or the honesty of the
directors in the management of the bank, but
argued that the article complained of, when read
with the other communications on the same sub-
ject which appeared in the journal, did not amount
to a libel of so serious a nature as bad been alleged.
Lord Campbell, iu summing up, said the jury
had in this case to perform a very important duty.
English jurors were the guardians of the liberty of
the press and of free discussion. They were
likewise the protectors of private character
and commercial credit. The charge against the
two defendants was, that they had conspired toge-
ther to vilify the characters of the directors of the
company called the Bank of London, and to injure
the credit of that establishment ; and it was for the
jury to say whether that charge had been made out
to their satisfaction. A great deal had been urged
on both sides as to the character of the publication
of the 18th of April, and no doubt that would be a
material consideration when they came to discuss
their verdict. If they thought it was merely a fair
comment on a public establishment, they would in
that case say it was no libel ; and if they did so,
then they would strike at the very foundation of
the charge, because it was principally on that al-
leged libel, coupled with other circumstances con-
nected with it, that the charge of conspiracy rested.
They would have to say whether the article was a
fair comment on the facts before the writer when
he wrote it. It seemed that the bank was estab-
lished in 1855 ; and he must say, m the discharge
of his duty, that, as far as he was able to form an
opinion, it had originated in good faith, and been
conducted in good faith down to the present hour.
But in spite of that there appeared in the Atlas a
charge against the directors, to the effect that they
had appropriated the funds of the company to their
own use. Subsequently there was published in the

same journal a retrae`ation and apology, and also a

•• • •
letter, which- was proved to have been written by
Sir J. Shelley, stating that, instead of having had
any advance from the bank, he had a balance to his
credit with it, and that the directors had misappro-
priated no money, and bad received no advances
except in the regular course of prudent commercial
dealing. Then came this article in the Joint-Stock
Banking Compahies' Journal, which seemed to his
lordship to take advantage of the charge so retracted
by the Atlas, and to reiterate it without offering a
particle of evidence in its support. The writer
spoke of the article in the Atlas having raised the
bile of the directors, as if the accusation which
had been made against them was not enough to
raise the indignation of any body of honourable
men. They were ridiculed for taking notice
of the charge that- they bad been guilty of a
gro's fraud upon the public and the shareholders ;
but, if the charge was unfounded, could they have
properly omitted- deifying its truth ? The alleged
libet then went on to say that the " vice-chairman,'
Mr. Frith, wrote a letter to the Times in defence
of "the moral character of his colleagues in the
direction," evidently intending, by using the italics,
to-sneer at theirmorality. The learned judge then
read over the whole of the remaining portion of
the article, coMmenting: .upon the different pas-
sages, and asked the jury whether they did not
Oink that the writer had in fact adopted all that
was originally asserted in the Atlas, and thereby
expressed his belief that the directors were plun-
dering the shareholders and depositors? It was for
them to put an interpretation upon it, and in doing
so they would be by their opinions. What
were the facts which the writer had to comment
upon? - Public banking companies, like railway
and other public companies, were subject to public
censure, and the public was indebted to any jour-
nal, or any individual, who really and sincerely
and in good faith pointed out any improprieties or
faults of which they had been guilty; but then those
companies must be protected when they acted
fairly or honestly, otherwise no man of character
would appear in the capacity of a director of a pub-
lic company. But although they thought the ar-
ticle was a libel, that would not support a verdict
of guilty on the present indictment, which was not
merely for a libel, but for a conspiracy ; and un'ess
they believed that these two individuals had formed
a scheme to vilify the characters of the directors,.
and injure the commercial credit of the bank, they
would be entitled to a verdict in their favour. As
regarded Cockburn, it was clear that he had fre-
quently importuned the bank for advertisements,
and when at last he received a po=itive refusal,
that ho employed Lawson to write articles against
the undertaking, and his conduct both before and
after the publication of the libel was altogether
inconsistent with that of a regular journalist.
Then came the question, was Lawson jointly
concerned with him in the conspiracy. • The very
fact of his being the instrument by which the
libel was written showed his joint co-operation;
and he (Lord Campbell) was sorry to say the matter
did not stop there, because from an early period
Lawson had conceived a strong enmity against the
bank, and had been doing all he could to injure it.
When the bank was first established he wanted to
he appointed manager, but his claim was not ac-
ceded to ; and it appeared that when he made this
application to the directors he never complained of
their having appropriated the title of his own
scheme—a charge which formed the ground of the
action he brought against the company in the Com-
mon Pleas. That he wrote articles for this journal
was clearly proved, and that he contributed to -the
one of April 18 was a fact beyond all controversy,
for the corrections in the margin of the printer's
proof were in his own handwriting. They must
therefore consider him as the author of the article,
and as joining with Cockburn in publishing it, and
the jury would say whether they published with
the view of damnifying the character of the direc-
tors and injuring the public credit of the bank. If
they had any serious doubt upon the point they
would acquit the defendants, but otherwise it would
be their duty to find them guilty.
The jury, after a brief deliberation in the box,
found both the defendants guilty.
The two defendants were then ordered to stand
forward to receive the sentense of the Court.

Lord Campbell, addressing them by name, said
they had been tried on an indictment preferred
against them in accordance with precedents which
had been approved of for many years, which were
clearly sufficient, and could not be called in ques-
tion with any chance of success, and they bad been
found guilty on overwhelming evidence—testimony
which could have induced no reasonable man to
come to any other conclusion. The sentence of the
Court was, that for this offence they be respective'y
imprisoned in her Majesty's gaol of Ncwgate for
the term of one year.
The defendants were then removed in custody.