The Poole Telegram. — 1880-07-16 (Poole, Dorset, England)

CHARGE.  The Judge 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 survives,—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 interest they take in the administration of justice, and be ready to the beet of their ability to investigate cases. It has to my mind an important and deep influence upon the general public estimation in which the alministration of justice is held,to see those who occupy suchpnsitions take their part in such administration, whether as grand jurymen as special jurymen or common jurymen. The institutions of Englani are such that one of the advantages of them is that all classes who are gifted with suffielent intelligence take their pal t as grand jurymen. The proper number of them is 23 and when they fall to as in the present case, it is a matter on which a jacige 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 what I wish is that it should go forth to those who are absent, that their presence is require 1, 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 is such a small number again, I shall take those steps to ensure a proper attendance on the grand jury. What you have to do on the present occasion is very alight. lam bound to say that the charges here are none of them of the most serious kinds known to the law, and there is no charge, except one against a man for attempting to commit suicide, of any violence. Of the • chr.- '''.tl4 .ks f four 4.... larges, three require very little remarks trom me. One of them is a 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 case which I need remark upon is an indictment for libel, alleged to have been printed and published in the form of a letter to the editor of a newspaper during the recent election. The law of libel is somewhat peculiar. Generally speaking the construction of written documents is for the Court; 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 opini in that the document is incapable of being construed in a libellous sense, he has the power of removing it from 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 BenAt-Stanford, a candidate for the borough of Shaftesbury. His 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 cases 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 thought it right to impose a heavy punishment on the offenders. But this is a case of a very different character. There is always during election times a Oeit &in amount of license—l don't say it is a desirable