The Sun. — 1868-06-20 (London, England)

GBEAT LIBEL CASE.  After Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., had addressed the jury on behalf of the defence, the Lord Chief Justice pro. ceeded to sum up. After observing that the case shaped itself into two questions, one as to the correspondent's letter, and the other as to the leading article, his lordship went on to say that whatever might have been thought in days gone by, it was now agreed that a fair and impartial report of the proceedings in courts of justice, although it might contain matter defamatory to an individual, was nevertheless privileged ; and the advantage that accrued from publicity being given to law proceedings was such a public advantage that the convenience of private individuals had sometimes to be sacrificed. Of course, in a long and protracted trial it would be almost impossible to give a verbatim report ; but the condensation should be fair, just, and impartial. A newspaper, under the pretence of giving a report of the proceedings in a court of justice, that publishes comments of its own or the writer's, or incorporates facts that have not been stated or brought forward in the course of the proceedings, but introduces them of its mere motion prejudicial to the party, does it at its own peril. Referring more particularly to the case before him, the learned judge sa'd that the reports in question were more in the French than in our own sober style of giving publicity to law proceedings, and he had no doubt but that the jury would be struck with the great resemblance of the style adopted by the Telegraph and some French journals in giving law reports of that description. It. was, no doubt, very attractive to the readers, and might come to be adopted in this country, but he hoped that it never would. But while it was attractive to the readers, it was dangerous in many respects. As soon as a reporter departed from a simple and plain narrative of what took place he was apt to draw on his fancy, and the reports, which should be as truthful as the proceedings in courts of justice themselves are, became tinged with the peculiar impressions which he had imbued, and lost their fairness and authenticity. His lordship then pointed out the misconceptions, the additions, and the omissions relied on by the plaintiff in the report, and observed with regard to one portion of it that the writer must have obtained his information second-hand. In dismissing this part of the case from his mind, the Lord Chief Justice concluded as follows : "If you are of opinion that, looking to the whole of these communications, they do not convey a fair, honest, and faithful report of what passed at the trial, but that, yielding to the impressions of the moment, and with the idea of making his reports as attractive as possible, the writer has gone beyond the bounds of privilege, and has stated that which is untrue and prejudicial of the man about whom he was writing, you are bound in justice to say so." With regard to the leading article, his lordship said that an article stating that a man was acquitted through the stupidity of the jury, the ability of an advocate, or from the fact of his being a lucky man, all the time insinuating that the accused was really guilty, then an innocent man would have ground for complaint. Did the article say that, under all the circumstances, Risk Allah was innocent, or that, notwithstanding that he had been pronounced not guilty of the crime imputed to him by the verdict of the jury, given as it would appear with the entire approbation of the court, he was guilty, and that it was owing to the skilfulness of the defence and his good fortune that he had escaped the condemnation which lie otherwise deserved, or did it bear the construction put on it by the defendants ? If so there was an end of the matter. It seemed to his lordship that Readly's death could not have been anything but a suicide, and if they believed that the facts tended to the innocence of Risk Al'ah, and there had been recklessness on the part of the defendant, their verdict must be for the plaintiffs After being locked up from three till within a few minutes of five o'clock, the jury said that they had agreed to find a verdict for the plaintiff, but disagreed as to the amount of damages. The counsel for the plaintiff said that he would abide by the decision of the majority, but the defendants objected to this. The jury had consequently to be locked up again, and at twenty minutes to six they returned into court, and gave Risk Allah £960 damages.