Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-07-25
A NEW VIEW OF THE Law OF LIBEL,

A decision of mere than usual interest TO
journalists has been handed down by the
Supreme Court Of Massachusetts concern
ing the law of libel and privileged publ
cations The Boston Haratd, prior to any
action by the Court published in full a
petition that kad been filed in Court, pray
ing that the p1aintiff'be diSbarred, and set
ting forth certain dishonorable acts of his
as cause The Court holds that this
was not a privileged publication, and that
the publishers are not protected in giving
it to print Such petitions are not proceed
ings in Court until the Court has taken &C
ton upon them, and they are, therefore,
not privileged. They are, indeed, simply
ex parte statements, and do not constitute
a fair report of judicial proceedings as con-
templated by the law privileging certain
publications that are fair reports of such
proceedings. The facts alleged in the
petition were in themselves but eX parte
statements, say the Court, and cannot be
said to be Court proceedings. The paper
had a right to make fair report OF the
judicial proceedings in the case, but the
filing of a petition of the nature of that i'll
question was not judicial proceeding.
Judicial proceedings were not begun by the
filing of the petition in Court; it was re-
CURED that there should be service of the
paper before the Court acquired jurisdiction
in the matter From which we are to in
fer that any paper Tbelous in itself is not
privileged by mere filling in the clerk S
Office, for one might thus protect himself
in an infamous libel, by simply filing and
then withdrawing the paper after the press
! reporters had taken it down for publication.
There would certainly appear to be much
| force in the decision-it is at least one that
should put newspaper men on their guard.
The Penal Code of California says that one
is not liable to prosecution forlibel for pub
fishing a fair and true report of any judi
cial, legislative or other official proceeding,
except on proof of malice. The Civil Code
makes like declaration regarding prlvi-
| legged publications in actions for damages
for libel 1t would thus appear that the
construction given the Massachusetts, law
| by the Supreme Court of that State would
be good authority in estimating the true
measure of the privilege under our stat
utes. If this is good Interpretation it will
considerably limit the enterprise Of Cali
fornia journals which make practice OF
publishing the rccited facts in papers filed
in Court prior TO any service of them or
any action in the Court. The Massachu-
sets Court holds that the privilege claimed
has no application whatever to the contents
! OF preliminary written statements of claim
or charge They do not constitute u pro-
ceeding in open Court. knowledge OF
them throws no light upon the admins
tration of justice, since both the form and
the contents depend upon the will of Il pri-
vate individual who may not be even an
officer Of the Court. In short, the Court is
reported as saying: at would be carrying
privilege further than we feel prepared to
carry it, to say that by the easy means OF
emitting and filing it in cause Il sufficient
foundation might be laid for scattering any
libel broadcast with impunity, and we
waive consideration of the tendency of a
publication like the present to create pref
udice and interfere with a fair trial"