Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-06-30T00:00:00

m'rts was. an actiOn by thle itndividual known as Sir Uregor Pif'Gregor, against the proprietor of thec MTorninig Ilerald, for a libel tinserteI 'in thatlouvtiaA. Th;earwticle in qtuestion appearedl in the formi of a report of an application mladc by Captain Antrim, the cmunaander ofa nerchtan vessel, and Mr. Prince, a nmcmiber of thie Common Counicil, to the Lord Mayor elect, at thie ?tlansion.house, oni behalftof orphnan c illdren wh)om thie Captahi had brouglit froim tile Poavjei settlemient to England. These gentlemen wererepresentcdas ,omlplainiing of :h.- dainitift"s conduct in respect of thiat settlemnent, as charginIg him with holding out dlelujsive liopes to those witonis he pre- varied (in to emigrate, and withi obtainmingrnoncy fromi themi ttndrr lire- tence that rlmeadvancewould berepaid by liis bimnkers. It stated that the *;pp]iCaD1t gave aff'ectinig ilescript ions of time miseries which Ithad fallen oni the scttlcr.,, amionig whtoom wvere thje parents of the chiildreni foir whtomi thrv %oumlzht protection, whio had died of fever on their v .ivage to Englandl. To the dleclarationi setting, forth these articles, two sets ol pleas were pleaded; one Class of' ple-s justifying the allceed libel, because all tise matters whitib it contained we-re itrue; anid aniotter Class alleging in subistance, thiat an applicatiion was madle to thie Lord Mlayor elect of the nature uie. -;cribed, and that thec libel consisted of' a trtite, correct, and fair re- piort of' the prorcedtings. Issues wyere joined on thesi! Vle.iiiugs, mi thle c-ause came n for trial before time Lord Chief Jtustice at Gutild. lhail. On thiis occasioni, it was proved thalt the article was a trite, fair, and correct report of' thef transaction wvhicht occurreil at thte dlansion-house, and a's attempt was also madle to showi that alkl the chiarges adlvanced by, d1r Prince and Captain Atiitrim were true. It itas proved that flatteritngaccounts of diesettlement were circulated amnong those wivtote thley were likely to captivate; that poiems5 were2 Written, kinder the Airection otf the plaimUti, 'Alluding to fled-6 tious chazrmns of scenecry ; atIi( that thie unfortuntatepersons whio had this been indttccd to erinitrle found only a wildI track of country, where they wvere visitedt withi destititetive mialadies, under which; mnaly. perishvsl, v.ndl which crompu~led mLany other's 'LO ?v and sec& tie aidI of, charita,ble pierSois to obitaini a passage home. But it wvas tint proveil that M'Grcgor hiad obtaitned motley by time hiearts tie. sceribed ; atid the jitxry accortdingly fuoitntl for the plaintiff on the jug- tifications, alleging thait t'he mlattes -we-re vnae, -with a shilling 'lainiapes ; and for the dlefeiiclant. On thle pleas Stating that the report was a ifair, correct, and true aiccotunt of the piroceeditigrs on tule appli. cainto the Lord IMVayor. A rtile wvas afterwards obtainect i,cllinig oil thle defend-ant to show csuss whIY jdmn s"hou13 itot be en- tere(i for tihe plaintiff, notwithstanding Ltie verdict, on the secontli class of' plea, on, the grosisii( that they conitained nio aninver to the action. Mr. ScARl.arTT now th~Ioweil Cause agaunst the rule. After adh- versing to ttie natture of tile article chargctl at. libellous, lie Observed that the casc as n-iW presented to the Court involved a question of vreat public importance, bitt, riot he hoped, of considerable diffi- cuLlty.. a-namlv, whether a man puhliehing a true aceounot of pro- ceetfitigs befor-e a tmagistrate, on mratters of public interest, without m'aliciou's intentioln, wasi liatble to an action at the suit of any one whiose citaracter alight be afrfected by tite report. Hie was; not pre- paredI to go thLe lengzth of' contending that if the reporter was ac- tuated by lualice--which was a question for the jury-evenl in publishing a correct statemrept, lie ought not to be responsible ; but thtis was t'he excepition, atidi not the role. Thtere might also be cases of criminal. lpublication of proceedings before a1 mag1StratC-cas.e.N where secrecsy was neces9sary' to tine fuirthterance of public jiustice bitt the presdtr case was the reverse of' these, for the ob.jet of the applicristit was, that their dheclaratiotns should be madle pubhlicae war'ning to Others. Thle learnedI c-unsel nroceededl to nitlvert to the evidience at thie trial, a% supporting a la-rg'e portion of tile charges muade against the plaititiff, wtitti .tr. Juostice BAVrLgY remnindled him, that the Court were mno to give Judgment solely. on the record, tind cotilti not he influenced by any regard ta the mterits of thte case asdeveloped at the trial. Mr. I'CA5iT.E5I' siubmnittedi; but Said, that on tile pleadings, the nilahitiff~ to ettstaill isis reile must establish this wto -tai tile edli-or of' a pubtlic jouirnal gives a true ac-coant of' proceediniigs before a Inagistrate, which greatly concern tite public at large, and if lie dloes thi9 lined filde, atst witl it o motive bitt the dlesire to state rith, lire wvill yet be'liable tov an actioni if lie caasut lsso'ie by evl. ulenice that axll the statements which lite truily attributes to their riglit alittiors are in every pardticlar accurTate. The LoRD Cicuxy JtTsrrtcp Observed, that this would proba. hlly not tie thAe propr.stition contendted for on the p-avt of th)e pla'intiff; bitt it wouild probably be argued that the coniversation reportedI was no1 proceeding before a lnuagist;ate actitig in that character, but a 'here private'didlo4ue, whichl thie defendaitt hiad circitlateuf titrougit tile world. MNr. SCAnaa'rTT ilid,' lie wotilil titer argue the question on this. grmiund.tliat ithe article was a true report of what one tierson saidI to anothier in a miatter of'puiblic concern, anti circulated withiott mia. lice. the conceivedi thiat if thWiswas dlone, accrding to the priaci. Ple recognize(I in Lord Northampton'si case, there was no liability;, tuec trite (lisLitICtioti WAS, that whiere a man took on himrself to assert miatters dlerogatory to the Character of azsotiser, lie miust prove thetii to tie true; but where he only luhtabll'.ell that another saidI so, lie wvas jitstilied if' lie piroveid that tiley were soi said, unless it appetared that he was actuated by Mtdico, or dlesired to statupattthtencity on tile dc. tails wviticit he. impputed to tile speakllers. Mr.7 Just-ice BAYt.gy stiggessed, that there was a distinction be. ttteeLle repeating words Spokern by atiotiner, antI liublishitsig thiem in ipritit to the worldi especially iii a case whiere the words toigirt tinot li e at-Ainti;mle ait all, titless rediuced into writittg. MThe SCAnt sr'rr submitvited that this distinctioti was Imlportantt onlY as1 evidettice ofmnalicities design, which aiwayr, made the wvriter liale , sl wiii"ioulhl be sipecially statedi oti the recort!. Sup). posng le imslf,in ovig tr a13e tral,Should m-take -ssioa. iniselts refllccting_ onl theC charactIer ol' atiothier, whicih were hiot actionl. able in thtemselves, antI onie of his learnedl friends shottld afterwartls Ireport that Case, would lie be liable to ani actitois, because5 ini giving 1im (dlir. Searlett) as the spMeaker, lie dlid not Voinit MLt a pasty against whomii an actilon could be supported ? in this case, an al). plira!ion wsas nadie for diie purpose of conveying a warning lto time Lunwary, in order to save multitudes fromn a dhelusion which i'ould en n osry and ruits ; andI was the journalist whoa pnoblv,ahwA thai ivarningtoberlable? "Would the tnosteesof a turn p k e-rad berespon. sible, if they publis.hedl inlbnziiation wltlicl ile a CTreceived of the extortion of one of their agents, giving the name of their author, and intenduisg wisly to protect thec public?i Would a -pasty hs'n convey by letter an, nafavourable chracter verbally given by an. othier Of a servant be bald responsible, becausie he had rleduced that whichi was parole itito writing?p If not, the-n the present defendanit coulId 'iot be liable for honestly commtinicating to the, pva,01c in'or. miation given by persons apparently coimpetent, which was tif great impottance to every nian within tilerec of the dlelasions it was calculated to dissipate. dr .LSAWES followed on the same aide, arid,a also0 conle-ndea lthat thec declaration was had ; and tltat thierefore judgmnent could not be gvenfbr , eplaintiff. The LoeerrEJ JUSTICE observed, thiat as the plaintiff bath only recovered a shilling, andlaa he detfe,~svnhnfo Irecovetin sn1 ore coats than damages, the effect of arresting j udgme:at Iwouldi be toi inalce a difference of exactly 2s. (A laugh.) The CossamoxW SEROEAVT, 11r. F. POrA.OCK, and AMr. RrCreA EDs argued ii suPPOIrt of the, role. They lirged that the ilibel alludedI to no judicial proceeding-not even t o an examination before a magistrate; for the Lord Mlayor had no power whatever over the subject matter Of the coimplaint, nor was the plaintfif'before hlim. The question thenl was- simPlY thisl-had the editor of a newspaper a right to publish an'Y thing, said any where, about artY body, to the injury of character, uinless be was prepared to show, not merely that tile charges had been made, but that thjey were true ? The case of " Lewis V. IXVatter" wats an authority to sI'sow that 'ne might not even republish what was already printed ; much less mighit he give t,te ctrrrency of the press to slanders which hail been merely spoken. if the Couirt should hold That any -anan mhglit thus circulate calum.. nly, all protectioni to Chsaracter wouldl be desitroyved, andI reputation v;ottld have nO valite. The Judges consulted for a few minutes ; after which The Lonte Ctrtia JUSTICE saidi, lie was clearly of opinion that thec reLe tnust be miade absolute for entering up judgment for the r'aintffl, notwiths4tanding ttite finding of tite jutry. Tlie ne8tion arose on the record, and the decision of the Court was foundeti on the r-ecord, anti on that only. Now, on reference to time record, it did not appear, that oin tile occaion to which the libel applied, tle Lord Mlayor elect was -sittinig as a magistrate, or dischargtng alnY of the iluties cast on himn bY hiis office ; nothing was aUleged, but (hat an aPPlicadt)o was made to himn fr his attvice ottI the disposistion of certain childIren, which might hiave beets madle to hiim at dinner or at any time ishes lie was merely acting aSa private individual. Iildeed, the statements in) the libel went far bea- yond tIne nierits of any 9uestion of whiich the Lord Alayor could.i take cognisa4nce a's a~ At agistrate. The Cou,rt were not, thereforp, rt~ this tine, required to give any o tien on the question, whiethet a man, publishing an account of what passed before a maristrate, act ing in his public tapatity, could jilftify sucli publication, by aver- ring and proving the aecuracyofhisreport; but they were meiely to decide whether a mzan, inroruned that certaitl statementt hza beena maaie verbldly, pre)uidicial to tbe charaeter of atiother, tottl4 justify printing those statements, and sending them forth to the world. To show that such publication was lawtiuls the ease ot Isotd Northanip. ton was cited but that cs-s ir taketi As iA*, only *etit to thli et- tent-that if a party eprbAlly states th:lt he has binselt' beard an. other make miWe of certain exprescians, he mAy justify tidsstatemunt bY '6ving that it is correct; and thtts it ditFL'rel from the, preseat case in twI) points-first, inamuch it a hefe verttai sls2ntlr hiad been counimWted to the press; and second, that herd the arentlant did'not allege that hie heard the mdantlerous words, and therefore he did not otter hiinselfas a witness to the party nggrieved by the sdsnden Now there were many cases in w hicit shindet, not actienWhle while only spoken, became so whien reduced into writing, or disseminated by means of the press, and part, at least, of the allegations in this libel were of this character. The plaintiff, therefore, could have no action) against thie parties, whio spoke tite wordw,which became action- able only by the conduct of the defendant in printing thern. In this case, therefore, no reme(ly was giyen, except against him as to these expressions ; and the plea being insufficient as an answer to part of the charge, was bad as to the whole. On these grounds of distinction between the present case avid that of Lard Northamp- ton, the Court, Wvithout giving any opinion upon ihose more geetral topics whieh had been n@entioned in arntment, vwere satisfed that the pleas falltd (er the p1ina titf were Instnflcietnt to depyive him 6f his right to recover, aad therefore the rule for jttdgnent in his favour must be made aiisolutel AMr. Justice CAYL"gY, Air. Justice lioLnetD, and lir. iuistice t express their opinions serwint to the same effect, adding, that thecy thoughlt the declaration sufficient, and ob- serving, that in this ease the general question of the right to publish correct reports of proceediegs before magistrates, acting in discharge of t.heSt official dutties, did ntot arIse.' The rule was accordingly made absolute. The COUUTr flnished the consideratidn of the arguMents on rules for new trials in London and AliddleseX, and intimated that they wqea!A bear otoions on future days. COVRT OF KlI,WS ,BENCII, NVWEST7Mi1STER, JUN'E 29. 'lCGREGOR V. TlIlVATTES.