Star.
London, England, 1824-10-27 00:00:00

LAW
•
LAW' REPORD,
. .
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER 26.
MERCANTILE TRANSACTIONS WITH AN ENZMY.-00DEN
V. PEEL AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEROi WADDINGTON.
This was a special case, sent fisuns.the Vice.Cllancel-
lot's Court, for the opinion of this Court. The plain-
tiffs were merchants in New York ; the bankrupt hat
been a merchant in L-mdon, and transactions to a large
amount had taken place between the plaintiffs and the
bankrupt previously- to his bankruptcy, which hap-
pened on the 15th of March, 1815. After :11:: hank-'
tuptcy, Mr. Waddington was continued agent to windl
up the business, and in that character he received the
produce of goods shipped by the plairrifFs. Most of
the transactions to, k place during the war with Ame-
rica, from 1812 to the end of 1814, and the toe•tion
for the consideration of this Court was, whether the
plaintiffs could prove un,!er the commioion, debts
arising from contracti and sales dining bostilitie,?
Mr. TINDALL argued that the debts were plovie)le,
since the actual receipt of the money was subsequent to
the peace. The goods were shipped to 'Havre, c
signed to LaF.tte and Co. and were laudei there dutinp
the war. Part were sold, and bills taken at three months.
Mr. Wad.lint,ni discounted the bills with Messrs. P..ei-
gord, but the btl:s wet e not actual!y due till after the
peace. He contended that the action could not hold
for money had anJ received until the maturity of the
bills, and that, although an action at law could no_ be
maintaineJ far money received during the war, an a :t ion
was maintainable for money maturely and actually
tailing due after the cessation of hostilities and re-esta•
blishment of peace.
Mt PoLLoca, on the other side, argued that no legal
claim could arise from an illeAal transaction. A con-
tract made with an alien enemy Was essentially illegal,
and could not be made valid by the cessation of war,
and was thus quite distinct from the mere suspension
of claim by a war, after the contract had been made.
The case was of great importance, involving an amount
of .50,000/. or 60,0001. Au action could not have been
held for Dover in the bills, or in the goods, and still
less could an action be maintained for the proceeds.
The objection was not Mr. Waedington's. He had no
idea of such an objection. It was not raised by the
assignees, but it was an objection forced upon them by
a large class of creditors, who expected, by excluding
this claim, to receive a larger dividend.
Mr. TINDALL replied,and contended strenuouily with'
respect to the ship Benjamin, which arrived in Liver-
pool in January, 1815, after the preliminaries of peace
had been signed. The Court would not assume that
there had been a contract during the war, hut would
suppose the ship sent upon speculation to hover round
our coast, and enter a port after the signing of preli-
minaries. With respect to the Joachim, which landed
goods at Havre, he hoped the Court would not hold
with his Learned Friend, that an action of trover could
not be maintained, if the goods had remained unseiaed
by the Crown until the peace. The bills were held by
•Mr Waddington until the peace, at least they had not
,
come to maturity until that time, and he therefore
tru)ted the Court would find that an action could be
maintained upon those bills. The money had and re-
ceived was, in fact, a new contract, upon which they
sued, and entirely free from the taint of contract with
an alien enemy.
The LORD Cl4llll .Ins-tics—The Court will consider of the case,
and return an answer to the.Vice-Chaneellor.
DUNCAN V. THVVAITES AND OTHERS.

In this case, an action was brought by the plaintiff,
who is an Attorney, residing in New Inn, to recover
from the deft.ndants, who are the Proprietors, Editor,
and Printer of The Morning Herald Newspaper, com-
pensation in damages for injury sustained by him, in
consegnence of two libels, purporting to be a report of
proceediag which to:Ac place at Bow-street Police-office,
before Thomas Wats, EA one of the Magistrates of
that office, on the Bth and 15th of July, 1823, and
which libels appeared in The Morning Herald News-
paper, on the 10th and 16th of July, 1823. The libels
stated, " that the plaintiff undei went an examination
at Bow-street Police-office, up n a charge of assault
upon a child named AnntaChartres, with intent to violate
her person; that the evidence displayed such a compli-
cation of disgusting indecency, as prevented them (de-
fendants) from going into detail; but the libel added,
that it was but justice to the accused to state, that he
denied the assault, and that the child prevaricated in
some measure."
The defendants first pleaded the general issue; and,
secondly, that examinations had taken plaCe at the Pub-
lic Office at Bow-street, on the Bth and 15th • of July,
1823; that the examination did display disgusting in-
decencies—that the alleged libel was a fair, true, and.
correct report of that examination—that it was insetted
as public news in a Newspaper—that the defendants
had no malicioUs motive towards the plaintiff in doing
so; and that they merely gave what they, as Prop ietors
of a Newspaper, felt themselves entitled to give, a full
and fair report of an open and public examination -at a
Public Police Office. In one of these pleas the defend-
ants demurred for their insufficiency.
Mr. ParalsoN this day, in support of the demurrer,
.contended, that according to the defendants' own ad-
mission, the first plea, stating the libel to he a full and
true report of the proceedings, mutt fall to the ground,
because the libel did not contain the examinations at
length. He also contended, that the defendants could
not now place upon the record the depositions at large
of the surgeons, &c. in order to justify what he would
call their opinion of the proceedings at Bow-street. But
even admitting that the defendants would be justified
in resorting to such evidence in another case, he con-
tended that in the present case the defendants had no
right to publish an ex-parte proceeding before a Magis-
trate. In support of his argument, the Learned Counsel
quoted the cases of " Lewis v. Walter," 4 Barnewell and
Alderson, 62; " The King v. Mary Carlile," S Barne-
wall and Alderson, 167 ; " The King v. Fleet," S Esp.
123 ; " Tne King v. Fisher," 2 Campbell, 563 ; 'fire
King v. Clement," 4 Barnewall and Alderson, 379;
" Cox v. Coleridge," 1 Barnewall and Creswell, 37 ;
11-The King v. WI ight," 8 Term Rep. 293 ; The King
Creevey,' 1 Maule and Selwyn, 273. He submitted
that the cases which he had quoted went in support
his argument, that the defendants could not legally pub-
lish an examination before a Magistrate, and which exa-
mination reflected upon the character of any individual.
With respect to the inconveniences attending such pub-
lications, he had only to refer the Court to the late pub-
lications respecting Mead, who was tried lor murder at
the last Assizes for Yorkshire, and the publications re-
lative to John Thurtells ' "
Mr. E. ',awes, for the defendants, said, if he rightly
Apprehended the question which their Lordships WCI C
called upon to decide, it was this—Was the Editor of a
Newspaper justified in publishing in his news,raper.