The New York herald., 1873-10-14
LIBERTY tD IN ENGLAND
The Lord Chief Justice on the
Rights OF the English Press.
The "Thunderer" Attacked Remark
able ecsne in Court.
prom the London Times. sept. ss.l

'nc proprietor OF the Cheltenham Chronicle at
tended 20 answer tor the alleged contempt in An
article which not only expressed an opinion thas
tue defendant 4 not Arthur 0rton but stated that
y was admitted he was nol so. and argued, there.
lore, that he must be Roger Tchbcrne. lie made
an aindayit that he hal ntsedel &c oaly a. a sum-
mary OF the progress OF the case, but that he nov
perceived that it had gone beyond the limits
allowed. and for this he expressed his deep and
sincere regret. There was also memoria, signed
BY a large number OF the Inhabitants Of the town
In his favor, stating that he had conducted tha
Journal very creditaLly ior many years, and thas
he had earned the respect OF hts fellow town.men.
The memorial was signed ny tho chairman of
Quarter Sessions and the vicar several Jusllcea OF
the peace and Others OF the most respectable
inhabitants OF the place
Mr.. CoIyton appeared on behalfof the proprietor,
and pleaded these ana other topics in extenuation,
among which was his delicate state OF health,
though as TO this the Lord CLicf Justice observed
that he had admitted the authorship OF the article.
The Lord Chicf Justice, after consulting with his
brethren addressed the proprietor OF tie paper In
these terms:- You must have been aware that the
Court had intimated that no one should discuss the
merits oil the case or the evidence given, either In
public speeches or in the public press. IL never
It. We have announced 1t over and over again, SO
that 1t L. impossible that anybody could have been
Ignorant OF It, Your article Is not summary, as
you profess, bat 1t is comment on the effect or
the result OF the evidence and IL Is the more TO be-
effect OF the evidence SO lar as 1t has gone. II Ia
utterly ana
ENTIRELY UNTRUE,
and calculated grossly to mislcGd and abuse tho
public mind to say that lit is admitted all hands
that is one or those questions which must engage
the most serious and deliberate consideration or
the jury when they come 10 consider the evidence.
And to tell the public that it Is already disposed OF
is, II not an attempt to mslead them, at all events
calculated to misiead the pubic mind. Aud
bty, has not become possessed OF one-half
OF the evidence given in the case. Tho
81 view @ In te ewea
which you have put in and the memorial which
mas 6esn "a s TO Us we should have e y
as well as with pec.inaly fine; but as we are
told that you have suffered in your health aud we
are assured and believe that you have been twenty
years an inhabtant OF the town ana that for the
greater portion OF that period you have conducted
paper has also borne high character, we take
these circumstances into consideration and once
but but we must VISIT visit Il with some punishment, and.
therefore, we must sentence you to fine OF Gl50
THE LONDON TIMES.
Mr.. Keneay then rose to complain OF a series OF
articles, as be called them, which had appeared in
the Times under the pTetence OF being summaries
OF the days proceedings, and which, he said, are
most damaging to the defendant he said ne was
prevent It's being visited with the same degree Of
punishment as II It were the case of the editor OF
the hnees He SAID he saoqld be against
preston OF sincere opinion on the case, but
1t seemed to him that the writer was sys-
tematically endeavorng day by day to destroy tn 0
effect OF the testimony adduced on the part or
the defendant, and to suggest that 1t was worth
secution. ana that lie was thus ondeavoring to in
iuence the public mind TO prcjudge the question
'eThese summarizes he said, "arc not summaries
OF the evidence. out the summings up OF me-
10 the iniamous days OF scroggs and Jefreys Wien
everything that told against the prisoner was
brought forward and everything IN iavor Of too
maries, but designed for the criminal purpose OF
POISONING AND rERvERrING TnE PUBLIC MIND
and prejudlcing the millions OF the readers OF tho
Tines.against the defendant" Mr. Kenealy then
proceeded 70 read our summaries OF the "a, Sd
them in very strong terms without, however.
pointing out any one statement which was not in
read read the summary Of the I'd Of September Hav.
ing read these summaries, Mr.. Eencaly proceeded
to complain in each instance OF what he called the
destroy the evidence for the defence and to show
that it was worthless. In the first OF these sum-
Inaries, OF the I'd OF September the proceedings
OF he previous y-Monday--commenced with the
cross-examinaticn oil three Australian witnesses,
the Friday, and whose examination turned upon
geographical facts the relative distance and pO-
which the witnesses stated they had seen Ortom
and the defendant together. AMI as three days had
elapsed and no one could carry In his mind these
iacts and dates, without which the crosse xamina-
tion would have been unintelligibe, the reporter
preiaced his report OF 1t with brief, faithful and
careful reorganization OF the evidence In CHEF and
in his summary sated-as was strictly accurate
that one OF the witnesses retracted portion OF
his evidence. In the summary OF september the
reporter embodied o remark Of the Lord
Chief Justice that document In evidence
And in the summary of September he embodieG
a statement which was made by one OF the jurors,
and which was strictly correct, according to the
evidence. As already stated, ia every instance
the effect OF the evidence was fairly given, ncIud-
ing the cross-examination. which, OF course, was
adverse to the evidence OF the witness. Nor did
Mr.. Kenealy in reading them, point out any mis-
statement, but complained OF what he called ths
stingu In each casethat Is, the effect oil the cross
examination OF the witness or the cross examina-
ton OF the defendant himself to wElch the evil
dcnce related. While Mr.. Keneay. was comment.
ing on .he summaries oil the above mentioned
dates-the I'd 3d and 9th OF september
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE INTERrosED,
and said Ii had struck the Court that to contrast
the evidence OF the Witnesses ior the defence with
the evidence given by the witnesses for the prose-
or m e sn on sns te
opinion TO that effect, and chat 1t would be best
that the reports should be restricted to the usual
mode Of reporting the statement oil what passed ill
Court, leaving the comparison OF the testimony OF
the witnesses to the Jury. The Court expressed
that opinion, and were under tie impression that
the reports siuce then had coniormed to their
recommendation.
date (the 18th instl were among those complained
Of and was answered In the negative; upon which
The Lord Chief Justice observed that SO lar as he
had becn able 10 judge the reports since then had
been free from the objection pointed out He
added that this appllcation-made as to reportS
in newspapers published before that timc--waa
rather late.
Mr.. Kenealy-Then yonr lordships think that It
would be useless to pursue this application fpr"
ther I?
The Lord Chief Justlce-Yes; as the msnnar OF
reporting has been, 1t appears corrected IN accord
anee with our suggestion. We thought that conf
ment Oh the evidence should be discontinued, aud
IL has been discontinued.
Mr.. Justice Mcli0r expressed q similar opinion.
observing that reports should be without COM
mcnts on the weight or effect OF the cvidcacc.
Our reporter. who is a member of the Bar, hero
rose and said that 1t was impossible Tor him TO
hear such attacks made upon him, coucacd IN
such gross language, without rising to protest
against them.
Mr.. Justice Mellor-What locus staadt have you
TO appear2
Our Reporter-My nord. don't know exactly
what legal right may have to address your lOrd-.
ships tthc application having been Dismissed put
trust that, az member Of the Bar who'is not un-
known TO you, and who has for 50 many years.re.