Bridport, Beaminster, and Lyme Regis Telegram and Dorset, Somerset, and Devon Advertiser. — 1880-07-16 (Bridport, Dorset, England)

CHARGE.  ------ --The Juage said in charging.the Grand Jury :—There Is really very little to occupy your time here. but I cannot but express my regret that such a small number of Grand Jurymen have attended. So long as the institution of grand juries survivee,—and I cannot think it will survive much longer if g- ntlemen do not attend,—it is a most important thing that gentlemen who occupy influential and important positions in the county should show the int..rstit they take in the administration of justice, and be ready to the best of their ability to investigate oases. It has to my mind an important and deep influence upon the general priblie estimation in which the administration of justice is held,to see those who occupy such positions take their pert in such administration, whether as grand juirymeu as special jurymen or common jurymen. The institutions of England are such that one of the advantages of them is that all classes who are gifted with sufficient intelligence take their mot as grand jurymen. The proper number of them is 93 and when they fall [to 15, as in the present case, it is a matter on whieh • j3dge feels bound to remark,and very frequently judges are bound to fine those who are absent. In what I am saying now my observations are not addressed to those who are present, for they are properly fulfilling their duty; but whet I wish is that it should go forth to those who are absent, that their presence is require., and if it falls to my lot to be here on the next circuit, or should I be in the position to communicate with another judge, and if there I. such • small number again, I shall take those steps to ensure a proper attendance on the grand jury. Whet you have to do on the present occasion is very slight. I am bound to say that the charges here are noneof them of the most serious kinds known to the law, and there is no charge, except one against • man for attempting to commit suicide, of any violence. Of the four charges, three require very little remarks from me. One of them is • charge of larceny, in which you will have very little difficulty in finding a bill, and there is also the charge to which I have alluded. The latter appears to have been brought about by habits of drink, and at the time the prisoner attempted it he was bordering on a state of delirium tremens. Most of these cases seem clear, and no doubt you will find bills. The only Me which I need remark upon ill an indictment for libel, alleged to have been printed and published in the form of • letter to the editor of • newspaper during the recent election. The law of libel is somewhat peculiar. Generally speaking the construction of written documents is for the flourt ; the judge is bound to give his opinion and decide upon the construction of such written documents' but with regard to libel the case is different. In order to secure free discussion and free judgment being exercised by people upon libellous acts, and originally to prevent tyranny in the struggles :for liberty in this country, the question of libel or no libel is for the jury and not for the judge. It must be printed matter and not merely verbal, and If the judge is of opinion that the document is incapable of beMg construed in a libellous sense, he has the power of removing it b om the jury. That power, however, is exercised very rarely, and only in cases which appear to be perfectly clear. In the present case I have no doubt upon its being capable of being libellous. I cannot remove it from the jury, and I therefore leave it to you to exercise your own judgment and place your own construction upon it. The libel is supposed to reflect upon a gentleman named Benett-Stanford, a candidate for the borough of Shaftesbury. MS Lordship then read the statements complained of, and went on to say: It is for you to say whether that is a sufficient case in your mind as being libellous, and for which prisoners should be arraigned on the criminal side of the Court. It is a matter of deep Import to the nation. Some people think, and some judges are of the same opinion, that libel should be left solely to the Civil Courts. I don't think so, I think there are some canes which are subjects of criminal enquiry. I tried one in this circuit recently, which was a very bad libel indeed, the prosecutor was perfectly right in not bringing an action, but in Indicting the party, it was a very bad case, and I thontht it right to impose a heavy punishment on the offenders. But this is • case of a very different character. There is always during election times a certain amount of license—l don't say it is a desirable  thing if carried too far. At all events if every person who promulgates an election squib during a period of election excitement is to be prosecuted for libel, the courts would have enough to do, and I don't think it would tend to the public good. The question of libel or no libel is for you and not for the Judge. You have greater freedom than the Judge has, for the Judge is blund by strict views of law. The old definition of libel, which has never been changed, although some consider it might be changed with advantage, is that "a libel is a written or printed document tending to injure the reputation of a person by bringing him, or her, into hatred, contempt, or ridicule." If that was strictly followed there are a great many things which would be libellous, which would otherwise never have been thought of al being prosecuted or made the subject of an action. For instance, a cartoon in Punch would be libellous if some of our Cabinet Ministers or statesmen were to bring an action against the editor of Punch because he pablished a caricature of them. Therefore if anyone brought such an action, the best thing for him would be a farthing damages. Juries are enabled to treat the matter as one of common-sense, and consider whether it is a case which deserves a substantial verdict in a civil action, or a verdict of guilty in a criminal action. If, then, you think this is a libel fairly to be tried in a criminal court, you will find a true bill, if not, you will ignore the bill.