Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-09-12
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
London, Thursday, July TO-
LIBEL SAUNDERS vs.. MILLS

LIBEL SAUNDERS vs. MiLL''
uThis was an action by an attorney OF brl''oi
AGAINST the proprietor of he Bristot Gazctle,
far nnb,;sbinp the repor, of trial in which The
sneech of counsel reflected inJuriously on Inc
character of the plaintiff. The defence was
grounded on the righi of lie press 10 puo"sn
al, proceedings which take place In courts oil
law.
"The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up,
said, that il the editor Of a newspaper gave a
fair, plain honest, and unvarnished statement
of he proceedings in cour' Of losticr, ne
would not be liable 10 an action for libel: Tor 1t
was he rirhr of the public 10 have all such
proceedings made knows II them, and though
the character of Individuals might thereby be
occasionally involved. vet that smaller evil was
permitted, in consideration Of the greater pub
lie good which was Obtained But II was IN
cumbeni upon all parties who published the
proceedings Of court OF justice, to furnish
evidence that their report was fair, candid,
and hones' statement.
son the presen. Occasion it did not appear
how far The report was Fair and true state
ment. Tia, was evidence which ought to have
been supplied by the defendant; and therefore,
il there was any deficiency in that respect, ne
had himself to thank for il: He (the Lord
Chief Justire) was no, prepared to say that the
publishing Of the opening speech ct counsel,
unsupported by evidence, would en'ltle the
party publishing ii to The protection granted
to those who gave fair report OF the whole
trial, because il was very we'll known thatthe
speeches of counsel were often very different
from the evidence; but in the present case,
though The article set out withou. stating that
The d" action tork place under these circum-
stances as stated bv ,he counsel for The prosecu-
ion" YET il seemed as il the editor afterwards
adopted the repor, as his own, from The use OF
the expression, "It appeared hat The defendant
used to turn out, &r." The whole of the
evidence which the defendant had offered could
only properly be taken io'o consideration IN
mitigation Of damages, and hev would consider
what sum would be reasonable compensation
fur the iniary Of which 'hr plaintiff complained.
"The iurv consulted FIR abou five minutes,
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff Damages
sot."
No ono can read this brief opinion, which
- -ararted a. having been delivered by The
avoids some OF the most important points con-
nected with the case under consideration -
For exomple, it does not appear whether " the
speech Of counsel" which "reflscted ini urious
ly on the character Of the Plaintiff" was, or
was mot, a faithful report Of "the speech Of
counsel" as m de on The trial.
II does not appear whether the question Of
the fidelity >of the report was ever brought un-
der the consideration Of the court, and the
Chief Justice seems carefully to have abstaned
from giving anv opinion. whether, if the speech
were faithfully reported, the Editor would. or
WNuld pof h. IN, artioo oc n,
images. This distinction was fully gone into
when i, was ruled, that although member Of
Parliament was not answersble for what he
should deliver on the floor If Parliament, yet
tina, If he published his speech and that his
speech were lbelous. he would be answerabIe
in damages for the publication, altho' he would
not have been for the delivery of the speech in
the house.
This decision, however important. does not,
In our opinion, go so far as to say, that il an
editor OF newspaper were, OF his own mere
motion, as as matter proper for public nfor-
nation, TO publish his speech delivered on the
floor ofParlismen,, rehe"'ing injuriously or Ii,
belously on an individual that thai inditidnal
could recover in an acton for libel against the
editor for the publication of the speech. The
malice inferred in the member for putting his
speech to press would seem IN be wanting in
the case of an editor who should report de-
ba'e. There are many drlca' and important
points connected with The Liberty of Speech,
and the Freedom Of tn Press and me Rieh,s
Of individuals, which have not yer been examin.
ed or adjuGicsted. DEM Press.
TREMENDOUS THUNDER STORM This vicn
ity ( says 'he Worcester Yeoman) was visited by