Law Report.
The Times, 1824-10-28T00:00:00

i%Lr. LJAWE59, at the itittnmg of the Court, reSumed his arpumenton behialf' or' the defendants, which lasted nearly four bours and a half'. After adverting to the judginent of' M1r. Justice flolroyd in " The King v. Fleet," as favourable to his general reasoning, 'he proceed.. ccl to dtaw the attention of the Court to the erenour of the record. The plaintiff begani by alleging that he never had been guilty, or suls- pected to he guilfty', of the offence to which rererence was Ead e; and then Proceeded to set forth, not a mere suspicion, hut a chiarge made on oaith of that vern' offence. He did not assert that thie Charge was maliciously preferred, or false, or groundless ; but that it remained unde-cided and withouttrial. His cas~e, bearing aresemblance rather to art aCtion for a mlaliCious proseCuticon than to ordinary actiore for slander, Might be consideretd as requiring, like the former, that there should be a legal termination of the proceedings to which it re.. lated. fie complained of prejudice excited ; buit how could this work mischicf in either event of tihe chargIe? If hie should be found gIlty, would a publication like this be a ground for arresting elte judgmnent, or showing that he was not lawfully convict- ed ? Andi if laiwfullv convicted, wihere wouild be' the right to complain ? Shouldf he, on the o her hand, be acquitted, whiat damagce had hie sustained fromn Prejudice ? But here he must come, at thie time when the irse,e was uncertain-wben. perhaps, there might, be no trial at all-and asked to have damnages awarded in pounds, shillings, and pence, 'for the possible operation of a preju- dlice. whiich, in the one event, would work him no edamage, and in the other. wouild do him no wrong ! The p-aragraphs were then setr forth, w-ith an array, of' Motive imputed from irldctments~ Which was dlen icd by the plea, and which must aDpear wholly inapplicable ott a mere per-usal of the article,. Suppore the moti'tes had been traly stated-tlitat the defendants, being Conductors of a public jour. nal, and minded to give a truie report o5' matters con)cerning the pub.. lie, did, withiout malice, publish a mitigatedi account of ani exeamli- nation at Bow-street respecting a charge of crime-could the Costar say that this was the ground of a claim for damages?, Wlas there one wordl in the parag-raphs which manifested any other than hif, laudable design, and a wtislh to promote justice without violating de.. cency? ott titefaceoetlhedeclaratisn its-elf,then, puttinigthe pleasoatt of'qtuestion. there was nothing on which judgmnent could be given for the plaint f.f. Even ifsa criminal proceeding could be supportedi for such a publicaion, it did nor follow that an individual miight sustain an actton for damages. Between the twvo proceedings, there were sound. radical, anti iniportrant dlistinictions, besides the tdistinction that costs might be obtained in one, atnd not in the othe-r, whIich was so intelligible to the feelings of an attorney. An indictnment had no re. ferenwe to the character of' the party, complaining whereas cha-. racter was the basis of ain artion fur damnages, and, according to the old case of " Crawford v. Mliddleton," I Levinz, 812. the law re- qu ired an express averment of innocence, which a defendanit might traverse. An inidietnient might be pres,ented by any mani who bad his share in the public grievance Occasioned by a crimne, but no Mari cotild bring an actio n for his own share of a public grievance, as in case of ntuisance, unless he couldrthaw that he was aggrieved beyond hisi fellows. Ar indictment could nost be answered byva plea. that the 1,catudalous matter was tr-ue, witichl formned a colnjdete legal is- tificatton to an action for slander. An indlicinsent. was supposed be conducted fer public purposes, and under Public control, and dIL,e not abate with the death of the party injuxred ; but an action was eni- tirely in the hands of the plainitiff, and abated with his deceasre. All the distinCTions were in faTour of' indictmenits, and it was right that it should be so-that public morals and the publie peace shiould have especial protection : while the fartliings of plaintiffe received les- td'.our, and were cut oilW'with other things beneathi the nolice of' the law. Even in indictments, however, a criminal Intention was necessary and the miere conres. qitential damagLe was no basis for the prosecutionto rest on. Before -Cutry v. Walter," Ithe case of " Carpenter v. Tarrant." Reports in thle 'Time of Lord Har6wick, 339, decided that tio action could lie for za true report of' a ptublic trial, In that case, the slander con- tainc'c miore, and the general issue only was, pleaLded, but Mr. Jus-. rice Lee, in giving judgmient for the plaintiffr, said "1 Trii resolu.. tion can he no hurt to the defendant ; for if thesec words hiad beea only a tiarratfit'e (a narrative-not a detaill of what na.sed a- the trial, he mig,ht have pleaded ft so, anti justified. tho:ugh at the trial (no: having been. pleaded) it could only have been giveti in evidence: in Mitigation of' damage, : thle truec gist of the action being whiether hie. spoke the words falsely and malicouslv." but Currv-'v. Vait er'" was an express authority to show, t]hat a true repart o'f ant erparte statement in ani open court, however defamnatory, was no, libel far whichi the party defame(i might seek a rersehy' by action.. It was not truie that the case rensalned undecided ; it, was so:emrnly- decided on priinriple ; arnd it stood over unit' on a dloubt whether the miatter which was allowedi to be substantial ground ot' def'ence, oui!ht not to have been speciadlly pleadied, It was riot trite that this case hiad been shakenl . it htad never been overruled; it lmd been ii- rmitetd only by the b"lfor dic!a of Judges : and even these limitations applied to cases whiere the report was uinfair, or accomnpanied by' comments. In ttiate case the opinion of the Court rested on tlie pub.. hicitv ofthtle proceedings. net oni their natuire, or the stage in wrhich. tliey were Tinputted.' " 'fite King v. Wridi't" was also most lar.. Vortant int principle hbecause it was thiere held ju!stifiable to pub.. lish) a report oftLile hiouse of Commnons, which was in the nature Of' apeiiary inqairy. in thiat c:ase illr. Justice Lawrence said-. Thonughi the publishing of sudth proceedings (that is, in Leurts of' Justice) niay, be to the disaidvantage of the particular individual Con- cerntd, yet it isoatvast imiportance to thle PUblic that thle proceedings at courts of niustiveeshould he utni%ersalyv known. The get-lj a-d- vantage to the counti v in having these p~roceedings. inatte public,more: than counrterbalanccL~ the iinconveniences to thle private pc'rons wvhose condluct miay be the subiiect oft such proceedin-s." Restirng' on theuse atithiorittesof tar mo;re weigzht than any of the dirta ,Lf' Judges at NisiPFrius, when umnecesasry toi thecasesbefore them-he wostid nowr say a word On thle policyl Of all1owing trUe_ Tepor's of' the nroceediii'gs before magzistrates. The taiaigers apprehenided irons' these were merely fancifuLd and would vanish whenL brought to the teat of' experience atid reason. Thee were not =ore e.t1tatftc rhati handbills for the apptrehension ot' person's ac.. crdocriite , who hiad never Cyril bcen hieard or Confronted with thieiraZCCuIscrs; and yet these-, whieti iFsuetl bat6 fide, and bt' a perron. initerested in the discovery, were held, in Lthe case of - i)elanr v- Jones. -I Esinass , l to furnis,h no ground of' action. 'Were e all Lhe public interested in thie detection of crime-in the deve-lop.. ment ofthrie aCts, by which life or property miight be assaiied-.in the conduct of mnagistrates_andc in. tl:e whol'e prorress anid tetlour of' the proceedings.- But it was sail a pubication of the occurrenres at a police-Afilce, liatt a tendency to Prevent a fair ti?.al ;-o mcc idle anct grounidless suruilse ! Xlhat did the party who suggested it assurnte T'hat, because a man was comwitted. the -m.tgistra:c believed hini guilty. ithotigh the law yet presumed finm rinncent-that all the p"-r-ons;actually'v present at an examiination,"would kerp secret what titer hearid-th4t there wouldl be a trial at lLt whicih Steni did tiot hiappen, and probably istighi not happen, where one oh the prosecu.. tore was thec cutisin ofr the' accused, and that the law prretitned th.e jhuiry ignorant ofatll the circunmstances of the clharge, th &ti fa irmerly' torey w,ere hroughit dcit, iccnr'cn purpose thIt they mignt know them. 'IhIr JhIstice B. Y LsF. Y_.Tliat they miight kn'ow the character of' tite witnesses. And it parties preie'r a falsr char'ge, w)h.ich titey dare no(t bring to, trial, is that a teason why the Imanl ht011oiti the accused haZs sustained no ir.lury that*jures wuldbe tflueced n tle tial yripees,.ions derived. trot plic reort, cd istaicet te cse f "thec King v. Fleet" in hic al th tie mde ffilavt tat thev receivedl no bias tram the tthieaiooahieedto e alibl. n the year i81(t a bill weas~- asq lie (,Nl r. L,awes) hiail occausion to know-introduced into the House of Commons to profitbit reports at' procceedings before mragis- trates,. bitt it w-as either thrown out or wi thd-rawn. The publicity given ri t those proceeding's was nmost valuabl-e to the t3tagistrates thlemselves, on wlionti it operated as a siletit bitt eff'ectual chieck, and whott it tendril to Preserve in tite paths ot' consiNtency and honour. Th'lere 'A cL no tollndation fapr the distinction set up' between itital proceedings and the iitterntctiate stages ot a ease : hthe public vwere alike interested t ei cach ,anid as niotty cases were never brought to, trial], those, tinIess ptubl'.h ed at tirst,iimost be bur-ied in utter obli- ViuTi. We're superior tributtals to be exposed to the control of pub- lie otinion. ani (Iin:erior couirts, wit. needed6 it niore, to be shrouded front its iittloetcu I ndepei:dei;t ef these genetitl considerations, tdeeae cam crn withiin the nniriteiple "teeveral cases. tefhere the party' sp. aking o)r a::itine of another hiad an interest iii the suh~ject, ard spoke or wrote wvithiout tuatuciouis des,i;gn. Tnlus a suitor iii a cutlet 01 Jutirec, though intrnoducing extranieous matter-at) advoucate paleaing tot hiii cient-,iwastcr giving a character ofa servant-rind a elergyvtu:,ttdirc,ssinv, hr. ongrergaiioti, were exermp,t trnm legal tO0OSerI uclites. ,'thnu ttgh t iet ciighturtierinuatter pre;utic al to in- divi~-duals. Crittisimis on, thiatrical poi"ormttrs atid re books , hoR - ever isevere, were also within the protection ot the law: ,Ddadshiv i' Because r[itepuibtut fi ha an irteret i iitheir tituserncrntsalid th'cir, lterature, which itisuihied t);e illtferCe tsc ift' hose who wetuit Pro- teCt, both tr-oiin degrardationt, siln bevaurse the critic wrote vwithout ainialiciouts des;ign. !~o reporters. while the' treted fWitly, were pub- lie instruictors, and dle,.erved proteCtiuti in tin' legitimate discharge of' thecir dote. Buit it was saidi theY imust pUblish the whole details of' a case. every uinri an 1alhtew. or tiw;erzoust rublish cone. Such a doctrinle would ito: li-mit the righit a: reporting. tt:it 'ittetly ihestro)' it, beeam se it wasa liioohe,ivoltwith the nss:sitance ot shaori-hanid, to g.ivc mny caseusu/t, nor hiAad any ever been so given. This dot trine woti(it lead to rthe coniclusiolti that all the hise reports were 'oil or ihl and cccii ii -sirs, Bartuewitli arii6 Creweil. who, exer- cits"'t hicir fu'tctiotts so greativ for thr hen(tit (it' their prot eslicn. itt LIst preplare Itar aati.ns ati e ritnnuttl intu tt ttliSonswithout: enui. .'l,r..fusttceBAY t.E)V,-1t6isnutusu: ti toe gr'ntIvtmet who report fur tuteI S 151 ~sion give scantliloats tacts theliy gcoeraliv confiute their.. selves to Ithe point ut law, M1r. I,WX :s cor.tinued.-At uall event,;tite ttatvspaprr,s,liiich wecre so cotnducive to the public gooti. hy rendt iciig all itien virttually lire- stilt inioturi courts. must cease to reprInt it thits constructioti were supported. This itew d'ctrine wouild miake all police reports hliblcs, anti give to all the parties naised itt then, tor the last six years riglts of atitoit. Mr. .tr,st ic CClAYLtc1Y.-hJaLny of 'theCM arC not ii: a Cotndition to Sue. (A laugh.) ihlr ItA%%e EIt roceededh to argne ithal it was not necessary to detail all the, Circtunstances in the paragrapihs wh ich the (etitedn ih tLver in his plea, It wa,s saatd rat in this c.ase the repotit wa not i4ir antI correct, because iittni:sule no mention of' the evidence Of' tite surgeon. But :,lipposing tlhis evidence favouraLble to rie plaintiff,l (wltuc.-,hbeidid not admiit), still itilnistu be reculiected that the del en.. d.mnis die Tnot profess to give the evideisee st all, and th'y were surelyN nut bound to select a part iii favour of' the accused, when c-omPelled by decency to on;it all that niade against him. The learned counsel ttien reviewed the formal objections to the pleas,as amrounting to the general issuc, as not distinctly applying the separate examinations to the separate reports, anti ts wvming particularity ot place and time ; and contendled they trere all futile. On a strong intintation from the Court, hOuwever, he gave upt the third Vl lca wih;ch simlplv alleged *- thait the timatters in the libels were true, as iniornual and tnicertain. In conclusion, hue placed his argument on three grotunds -that herc, character, the very foundation ot an action for slatider, ilid not conic in qncytion ; that the report wvas substan-t.ally correct and trite, and therefore privileged: and that, en the face of the re- co:l, all malicious motive wvas excluded. Illr. PA1 tTESON replied. lie contended that hisforrral objection, that the pleas aniotinted to the general issue. ougUt to prevail, be_ ca'lse the- mierely raised questions oh inwentiont. of' which the iury iwere the judges. All the picas werc bad in point of fornt, except the fifth and seventh, because these otly professed to set out the ex. atninations, wvithott which the Court could notjudgeef the truthl of the inference Otrawn, that the report was correct and just. If the Court looked to those pleas, they would find that they set forth the evidence of the surgeon, vwho distinctly contradicted the eltild, and vet no notice was taken of this inportant fact in the article; ciohid they, then, say that the relorE, even as a sumnmary was impartial and fair? I Mr. Lavsss had dwelt on the abseuge of malice; and, no doubt, exilress malicc u as negatived by the record btit not legal nad constructive malice. he term " malica" in IgAe aeceptation did not gtean an evil design towards il individutA bii entered into every publication defamatoty of another, withaut game und of privilege. Hand.bills, no doubt, would be libelous, un. ess publi)hed by a party interested in discovering a thief and bay. ir.g fair grounds of Euspicion. So all other cases of clergyMen, parties in a cause, counsel, and masters, were case.% of parties pri- vileged by the relation in which they siood, and the duties they were bound to perform. But what interest had a reporter in the examinations cf a party accused of crime? What good could it do to any human being to know that A. B. had been euarged vith assault, arld evidence too disgusting to detail adduced against him? No ! These police reports, which bad Increased greatlY of late years, did good to no one but tbe editor whose paper they filled up ansd ministered to a low anDt base appetite forperson- ality and scand~alJ. his paper, he believed, in particular, abounded ill them. AMr. Justice BAYLEY.-We cannot enter into that. Alr. PATTESON admitted the character of the paper was not now before the Court, hut proceeded to contcudti that no benefit, except the cccaslonal productiosB of evidence, arose rom police reports. Dur- ing the sssion of Parliament,they occupied little.cpace; but when there was little ineeli encc they became prominent, and exercised an unfa- vourahle influence on the public minda. ~He denied that a police-office was an open cou.t; and if the audience present chose verbally and indatriously to circulate what they heard, they would all be liable to actions, though they might beexcused if they only talked inad- vertently, or with each other. It was said the determination that poihce reports were illegal would give occasion to a multitude of actions-be it so-why should not the reporter take the same risk with others who propagsated defamatory matter, and stand or fall by the truth or falsehood of the charges themselves whichl he sprea(d through the world ? Actors and authors submitted to the judgment of the public; but was a private individual to be stigmatized by the publication of a charge whiclh might be wholly groundless, before is final decision, and exposed, like the plaintiff, to the reprobation of every honourableanl manly mind ? For these reasons, the learned counset submitted, that if thte technical objections failed, the Court would, on the broad principles he h ad supported, hold the pleas bad, and give judgment for the olaintiff The Court rosc as soon as Mr. Patteson concluded, and judg- nient was deferred to a future day. LAW REPORT. COURT OFKINr.qRlJ??r3i = - LEGALITY OF POLICE ,r? ,DU aK --k ?CT. 'WT AND OT14ERS.