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 bseu employed
as a clerk at the City of London Union, St.
Mafy-axe, and had been mixed up with the other
defendant in writing for the journal and correcting
proof.. 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 to 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
ca'egory 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.

Lard CAmpbell, in summing up, said the jury
had in this case to perf rm 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 aaainst 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 bren made out
to their satisfaction. A great deal had been urged
on both sidest.s to the character of the publication
of the 18th of April, and no doubt that would le
material consideration when they came to discuss
their verdict. If they thought it was merely a fair
comment on a public eAablishment, they would in
that case say it was no libel • and if they did so,
then they would strike at de 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, in 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 retraciation 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 had received no advances
exe.--pt in the regular course of prudent commercial
dealing. Then came this article in the Joint-Stock
Banking Companies' 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 tt:e 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 had been guilty of a
groPs fraud upcn the public and the shareholders ;
but, if the charge was unfounded, could they have
properly omitted denying its truth ? The alleged
libel 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 their morality. The learned judge then
read over the whole of the remaining portion of
the article, commenting upon the different pas-
sagep,:and a,ked.' the jury whether they did not
think-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 guided 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
ceusure, 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 these
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 unless
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,
a'id when at last he received a poitive refusal,
that he employed Lawson to write artioles 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 e ley period
Lawson had conceived a strong enmity against the
bark, and had been doing all he could to injure it.
When the bank was first established he wanted to
be appointed manager, but his claim was not ac-
ceded to ; and it appeared that wbea 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. Thht 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 mutt
therefore consider him as the author of the article,
and as joining with Cockburn in publitshing, it, and
the jury would say whether they published with
the view of damnifying the chit/actor 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