Star. — 1824-10-27 (London, England)

DUNCAN V. THVVAITES AND OTHERS.  In this case, an action was brought by the plaintiff, who is an Attorney, residing in New Inn, to recover from the deft.ndants, who are the Proprietors, Editor, and Printer of The Morning Herald Newspaper, compensation in damages for injury sustained by him, in consegnence of two libels, purporting to be a report of proceediag which to:Ac place at Bow-street Police-office, before Thomas Wats, EA one of the Magistrates of that office, on the Bth and 15th of July, 1823, and which libels appeared in The Morning Herald Newspaper, on the 10th and 16th of July, 1823. The libels stated, " that the plaintiff undei went an examination at Bow-street Police-office, up n a charge of assault upon a child named AnntaChartres, with intent to violate her person; that the evidence displayed such a complication of disgusting indecency, as prevented them (defendants) from going into detail; but the libel added, that it was but justice to the accused to state, that he denied the assault, and that the child prevaricated in some measure." The defendants first pleaded the general issue; and, secondly, that examinations had taken plaCe at the Public Office at Bow-street, on the Bth and 15th • of July, 1823; that the examination did display disgusting indecencies—that the alleged libel was a fair, true, and. correct report of that examination—that it was insetted as public news in a Newspaper—that the defendants had no malicioUs motive towards the plaintiff in doing so; and that they merely gave what they, as Prop ietors of a Newspaper, felt themselves entitled to give, a full and fair report of an open and public examination -at a Public Police Office. In one of these pleas the defendants demurred for their insufficiency. Mr. ParalsoN this day, in support of the demurrer, .contended, that according to the defendants' own admission, the first plea, stating the libel to he a full and true report of the proceedings, mutt fall to the ground, because the libel did not contain the examinations at length. He also contended, that the defendants could not now place upon the record the depositions at large of the surgeons, &c. in order to justify what he would call their opinion of the proceedings at Bow-street. But even admitting that the defendants would be justified in resorting to such evidence in another case, he contended that in the present case the defendants had no right to publish an ex-parte proceeding before a Magistrate. In support of his argument, the Learned Counsel quoted the cases of " Lewis v. Walter," 4 Barnewell and Alderson, 62; " The King v. Mary Carlile," S Barnewall and Alderson, 167 ; " The King v. Fleet," S Esp. 123 ; " Tne King v. Fisher," 2 Campbell, 563 ; 'fire King v. Clement," 4 Barnewall and Alderson, 379; " Cox v. Coleridge," 1 Barnewall and Creswell, 37 ; 11-The King v. WI ight," 8 Term Rep. 293 ; The King Creevey,' 1 Maule and Selwyn, 273. He submitted that the cases which he had quoted went in support his argument, that the defendants could not legally publish an examination before a Magistrate, and which examination reflected upon the character of any individual. With respect to the inconveniences attending such publications, he had only to refer the Court to the late publications respecting Mead, who was tried lor murder at the last Assizes for Yorkshire, and the publications relative to John Thurtells ' " Mr. E. ',awes, for the defendants, said, if he rightly Apprehended the question which their Lordships WCI C called upon to decide, it was this—Was the Editor of a Newspaper justified in publishing in his news,raper.