The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-20 00:00:00

GBEAT LIBEL CASE.

After Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., had addressed the jury
on behalf of the defence, the Lord Chief Justice pro.
ceeded to sum up. After observing that the case shaped
itself into two questions, one as to the correspondent's
letter, and the other as to the leading article, his
lordship went on to say that whatever might have been
thought in days gone by, it was now agreed that a fair
and impartial report of the proceedings in courts of justice,
although it might contain matter defamatory to an indi-
vidual, was nevertheless privileged ; and the advan-
tage that accrued from publicity being given to
law proceedings was such a public advantage that
the convenience of private individuals had sometimes
to be sacrificed. Of course, in a long and pro-
tracted trial it would be almost impossible to give a
verbatim report ; but the condensation should be fair,
just, and impartial. A newspaper, under the pretence of
giving a report of the proceedings in a court of justice, that
publishes comments of its own or the writer's, or incorpo-
rates facts that have not been stated or brought forward in
the course of the proceedings, but introduces them of its
mere motion prejudicial to the party, does it at its own peril.
Referring more particularly to the case before him, the
learned judge sa'd that the reports in question were more
in the French than in our own sober style of giving pub-
licity to law proceedings, and he had no doubt but that
the jury would be struck with the great resemblance of
the style adopted by the Telegraph and some French
journals in giving law reports of that description. It.
was, no doubt, very attractive to the readers, and might
come to be adopted in this country, but he hoped that it
never would. But while it was attractive to the readers,
it was dangerous in many respects. As soon as a reporter
departed from a simple and plain narrative of what took
place he was apt to draw on his fancy, and the reports,
which should be as truthful as the proceedings in courts of
justice themselves are, became tinged with the peculiar
impressions which he had imbued, and lost their fairness
and authenticity. His lordship then pointed out
the misconceptions, the additions, and the omis-
sions relied on by the plaintiff in the report, and
observed with regard to one portion of it that the
writer must have obtained his information second-hand.
In dismissing this part of the case from his mind, the Lord
Chief Justice concluded as follows : "If you are of
opinion that, looking to the whole of these communica-
tions, they do not convey a fair, honest, and faithful re-
port of what passed at the trial, but that, yielding to the
impressions of the moment, and with the idea of making
his reports as attractive as possible, the writer has gone
beyond the bounds of privilege, and has stated that which
is untrue and prejudicial of the man about whom he was
writing, you are bound in justice to say so." With regard
to the leading article, his lordship said that an article
stating that a man was acquitted through the
stupidity of the jury, the ability of an advocate,
or from the fact of his being a lucky man, all the time
insinuating that the accused was really guilty, then an
innocent man would have ground for complaint. Did the
article say that, under all the circumstances, Risk Allah
was innocent, or that, notwithstanding that he had
been pronounced not guilty of the crime imputed to him
by the verdict of the jury, given as it would appear with
the entire approbation of the court, he was guilty, and
that it was owing to the skilfulness of the defence and his
good fortune that he had escaped the condemnation which
lie otherwise deserved, or did it bear the construction put
on it by the defendants ? If so there was an end of the
matter. It seemed to his lordship that Readly's death
could not have been anything but a suicide, and if they
believed that the facts tended to the innocence of Risk
Al'ah, and there had been recklessness on the
part of the defendant, their verdict must be
for the plaintiffs After being locked up from
three till within a few minutes of five o'clock, the
jury said that they had agreed to find a verdict for the
plaintiff, but disagreed as to the amount of damages. The
counsel for the plaintiff said that he would abide by the
decision of the majority, but the defendants objected to
this. The jury had consequently to be locked up again,
and at twenty minutes to six they returned into court,
and gave Risk Allah £960 damages.