The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-06-20 00:00:00

LAW IN LIG ENCE.
COURT or KING'S RENClL—('rsts Dar.)
tan novo O. 11l F. sumpayt.

The Court was Slain crowded to brat the &darn
sf
this important cast.
Mr. SCAALETT observed, that when he left of is as.
tunlav he was about to consider, whether the easels(
the King r. Beer', and the King e. Paine, were assddid
on any just authorities. He was submitting to chtir
Lordship. that Lord Camden, in considering this,*
jet, had stated, that as the press was introduced br ght
King (Henry the 7th), an opinion had prevailed, fij
st
should be under the controul of the King, ar,d that die
might account fur the opinions of many Jiidges „No
subject. Now it was not unnatural, that a few ”&"
after the revolution, Lord I hilt, and t he J ndgesconcartik
with him, should suppose that there was Wine fuundavisi
in common law for such a supposition. It was, tut,
fore, not surprising, that a few years after the revs,
lion the JnJges should still be biassed by these
dices. Lord Hutt, In delivering his judgment. Kai*
v. Beere, had referred to the authority of Lord Cote
The Learned Conflict proceeded to read the definitions(
libel, as given by Lord Coke, a hich, he contralti,
made the offence of libel to consist solely in the wit
publication. In the case chiefly relied upon by Loci
Holt, when John Lamb (with many other perms
residing iu Northampton), was indicted fur publishiag 4
libel, the Judges had resolved, that any person, alt.
Leg or publishing, or procuring to be publisity,
moth a 'malicious in/ration, nag guilty of libel. Here lit
Learned Counsel instanced several 'oppositions row
'bowing that this as a limitpl opiadow, and that tier'
1111411 several cases which it dif not include. Mr. btu.
INS lee referred to Your's Reports, and react the rew-
lutieso of the different Judges in that case. From thew
be segued that it never entered into the contemplation
of any of the Judges to declare, that a person writing
without a view to publication, was guilty of libel:
—He a ould no* proceed to esdensour to show, from non
modern authorities, the fallacy of Lord Hell's remuniag is
the cases of Paine and Beare. He would first refer to a cue
decided in 1799. and he thought that quite as good autheritt
SS that of Charles the geromi. la this rase, a question
been submitted by the Douse of Lords to the Judges. ice*.
whether a witness brought 131 the plaintiff to probes
Wildcat intent was a competent n ituess before a Jury. Tie
Jodie% (in in number) had replied, that the criminal inns.
Rom was generally matter of form, and did not requireprort. Irs
that the crime consisted is publishing. The criminal junc-
tion of the writer was ao pert ref SO crime of Met sleet
MO% law." Would, then, Mr. Attorney-lieneral carry them
back to the times of the Resolution, to rale spasm to car-
port his argument. The Attorney-Cenoral had esdeareered
to draw a distinctioa between an action bright %Tibet by
a private individual, and an :idiots instituted by the fleas;
sad the Holicitor-Henu!al had said• that no damages could
be sustained by • private individual without pablirstiot
In each case the publication bad the sane elect, and if tte
images 'multi not accrue to a private individual without publi-
cation, mishit). a breach of the peavey could sot be curasiesel
The ' a proceeded at saw
the modern decision