Star.
London, England, 1827-08-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

DORCEASTRIT, Aust. S. -
Civic Stos.—liefore Lord Chief Justice east

LIBEL.-LA N.SI NU V. CHISWICK.

This was au action brnualit by a person f the name
of Lanning against Mr. Criswick, the printer and pub-1
fisher of The Sherborne Dorchester, and lawnton Jour.
nerd. and General Advertiser for the South and West of
England.
Mr. BARSTOW stated the case for the plaintiff. He
observed, that frdm the nature of the defendant's situ-
ation, it would perhaps be expected that the Counsel
who appeared against him would commence by an
elaborate dissertation upon the law of libel. Now, if
any such expectation prevailed, the parties entertaining
it would, so far as he was concerned, be much disap.
poin ed, for lie had not no the present occasion a word
to say touching that important point. The case, how-
ever, might give rise to soother important question,
which had of late be• n much canvassed—namely, the
extent of that tesponsibili y which attached to a.new,-
paver proprietor lot-the injury which another person
turreted by his pubacetion, even though the edito,
were unconscious f, and never intended, any malici
ous injury at the time. The plaintiff was a. cattier
residing in this county, and stoutly before the Spi ing
Assizes of rt e l teser.t year he had. the mid-opium-.
'Enough a mi take ol „identity, to have been committed
upon a charge of rubbery in his neighbourhood.--
Some pouiti y va. stolen from a Lady near hii re.i.
dente, and by mi• take st.e offeace was imputed to him.
Ha could not complain of the legal consequence of
that unfortunate mot, neither could he of the trial
which followed. Two witnesses (in error) swore to his
identity, but he was immediately acquitted, there nrit
firing the smallest real foundation for the charge. So
far be had suffered, but so far he could not complain
of the, due operativ. of the law. It was mortification
enough to be m ,de ti•e companion of felons, but it was
rather tots much to have reserved for him the injury
which the defendant bad perpetrated; for when Mr.
Lanning returned home expecting to be received by
his friends and acquaintances as a.r acquitted -and not
dishonoured man, he was looked noon as a convic.
who had escaped from his gaolers, because this defen-
dant, a man of reseectability and influence, h4d
thought propel in his paper to state, that Lanning bad
been cons icted, and sentenced to seven years' trans-
portation. The Jury would remember that the trial
and acquittal took place at the last Spring Assizes for
Taunton, and yet on the 13th of April, in the defen-
dant's paper, Lsnning'a name was put among the
transportable cases, in the lis., or summary, of the
sentences of the Assize. It wound of course be said,
that this had occurred through some transposition of
copy, as it was called, or of the types; and that when
the error was discovered, a paragraph was inserted to
set the matter right. But the Jury would recollect,
that not one hall.of those who read the libel would
probably read the correction. At all events, it was a
fearful topicto hint that a newspaper proprietor, whose
labours for, his own profit went forth throughout the
world, was to be allowed the power of circulati.g far
and near an atrocious calumny, and their passing free,
because upon a future day he gave it a printed con-
tradiction. In the meant.me what was to become of
,the feelings, the interests, and character of the im-
peached wan? Where was he to seek his remedy?
All the mere technical facts of proprietorship and
pubhcation were then admitted by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant WILD;, for the defendant, said that his
Learned Friend was right in supposing that none.of
the great and impoitant topics connected with the,
liberty of the press could possibly arise in so simple a
case as this.s Neither could he see hots the question of
the serious responsibility of the proprietor of a news.-
paper arose in any thing like a disi uted shape. . His
Learned' Friend had admitted the tespectability of the
defendans,and that he appeared by accident to have tom-
mitted an error ; for that error he must be undoubtedly
responsible, whenever the character of any other person
sustained injury by his agency, however innocent. It
would be admitted that there was no part of the duly
of a public journalist, in which the public interest was
more concetned, than in the diffusion of the repents of
proceedings in the Courts of Justice. These were some-
times given at length, and sometimes very briefly ; they
were obliged to be given weekly, for the gratification of
general curiosity and information, and, particularly
during the Assizes, the publication followed so rapidly
that mistakes were unavoidahly, though unintentionally,
committed. Such was the fact in the present instance
—a mere general summary was given of the Taunton
Assizes; in so many paragraphs were classed the sen-
tences of the offenders, and the plaintiff, instead of being
set down among the acquittals, was by some mechanical
accident put anion the convicts under sentence of seven
years' transportation ; but the July would be am zed
when he told them that the error, so tar froM originating
with the present defendant, bad arisen in another qu:ittet
—for Mr. C,iswick had co, ied the paragraph on the
13th of April from the Bath and Chellentrans Gazette.
of the 10th .of the same month. Although this mete
outline of Assize intelligence was given in such type
as to ensure its escape from the eye or the reader, unless
he were some poor groping un•mployed invalid,
who had been left behind an the sea coat by a Fie se-
coach, when he had prepared h'imelf to hasten else-
where to seek any employment ; neve, theless, the de-
fendant took the most immediate 'veil to correet his
error, the instant he was apprized i I its 'existence., The
Learned Sergeant then destribed the evidence which Ito
had to offer : first, that t. e mistake, had been copied'
from anther Journal; and secondly, that the plaintiff
had first offered a fair proposition to the defendant—
namely, to correct the erior, and then gone on, when
every tequest had been conceded, to m ke 1,e% ciairns,
the motive of which could not be misunderstood.

The comp )sitors of the defendant pr vrd that the
paragraph had been copied firm the Bath paper ; and
the following letters were read in evidence, as having
passed between the plainliffs" ct,rney and the de-
fendant ;

I hereby give you notice that this action is not brought with
the view to damages, provided it shall appear that the libel of which
plaintiff complains was inserted through mistake ; nor is it desired
unnecessarily to put you to the expense of going to trial to prove
Out fact, if you can prove it, and if you are disposed fairly and
reasonably to satisfy the plaintiff that the serious mischief in ques-
don was occasioned by mistake, and that you are disposed to repair
the mischief as tar as lies in your power, I shall be very happy to
receive a communication from you upon the subject."
To this commuilicittion Mr. Cs iswick replied;
'! In reply to the memorandum handed to me yesterday (rem
you, by a messenger from Shaftesbury, I beg to assure you that I
Was totally unconscious of having misrepresented the result of the•
'affair in which W: Lanning was interested. Indeed, the name and
porsentot the individual were altogether strange to me. I could not,
therefore, possibly have cause for entertaining a wish to injure his
reputation. 1 certainly Can have no objection whatever to repair
the Injury complained of by correcting the thisstaterncrit, if you