Page images
PDF
EPUB

fully without excuse is in law malicious. And even if it could be an excuse, that the publisher held what he published to be true, it is not so if he professes to publish it from authority. A newspaper contained this paragraph: "the malady under which his "Majesty labours is of an alarming nature (meaning insanity): it " is from authority we speak." At the trial of the indictment for this publication, the jury asked if a malicious intention were necessary to constitute a libel; to which Abbott, C. J. answered, that a man must have intended to do what his act was calculated to effect; and the jury found the defendant guilty. Upon a motion for a new trial it was admitted that the paragraph was libellous, but it was urged that malice was essential to make the defendant criminal; that he believed the King to have been so afflicted, and that the answer to the question by the jury was incorrect. But the court thought otherwise, as the defendant must know if he spoke from authority, and could have proved it and if malice were a question of fact, a man must be presumed to have intended to produce the effect which his act will naturally produce; and libelling without excuse is legal malice. (b) In some cases, however, the paper or other matter may be libellous only with reference to circumstances which should be laid before the jury by evidence. In an action for a libel it appeared that the plaintiff, an attorney, was employed by one Nash to bring an action against an executor; and that the defendant, who was employed to adjust the executor's accounts, finding that an action was about to be commenced against the executor, wrote a letter to Nash blaming him for allowing the plaintiff to sue, and containing this passage, "If you will be misled by an attorney, who only considers his own "interest, you will have to repent it; you may think when you "have once ordered your attorney to write to Mr. G., he would "not do any more without your further orders; but if you once "set him about it, he will go any length without further orders." And it was held that the question whether this letter applied to the plaintiff individually, or to the profession at large, was properly left to the jury (ƒ)

As the defendant is not allowed to prove the truth of the libel- Defendant's lous matter in justification of his conduct, (g) the evidence which evidence. can be adduced on his behalf at the trial will in general be confined to a very narrow compass. There may, however, be cases of a publication in point of law, where no criminal intention can be imputed to the party; as where a person delivers a letter without knowing its contents, or delivers one paper instead of another; (4) and evidence to such effect may be produced. But it is not competent to the defendant to prove that a paper similar to that, for the publication of which he is prosecuted, was published on a former occasion by other persons, who have never been prosecuted for it. () It was held, in a case where the supposed libel was (b) Rex v. Harvey, 2 B. and C. 237. jury. (f) Godson v. Home, 3 Moore, 223. And it seems that in this case if the point had been made at the trial, whether this was a confidential communication or not, such point would not necessarily have been left to the

(g) Ante, p. 211.

(h) By Lord Kenyon, C. J. in Rex v. Topham, 4 T. R. 127, 128. Rex v. Nutt, Fitz. 47. And see anie, p. 212, sequ.

et

(i) Rex v. Holt, 5 T. R. 436.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

contained in a newspaper, that the defendant had a right to have read in evidence any extract from the same paper, connected with the subject of the passage charged as libellous, although disjoined from it by extraneous matter, and printed in a different character. (k) Though the defendant cannot have the assistance of counsel to examine the witnesses, and reserve to himself the right of addressing the jury; yet if he conducts his defence himself, and any point of law arises which he professes himself unable to argue, the court will hear this argued by his counsel. (1)

If a libel imputes to a man a triable offence, proof of the truth of such imputation is inadmissible; for it would be trying the question behind the man's back, and creating a prejudice upon it. Where a libel imputed murder to certain soldiers, evidence was offered of the truth of such imputation, and rejected: and the court of King's Bench were unanimous that such evidence was rightly rejected; for the persons charged might afterwards come to be tried, and might be prejudiced by the previous inquiry. (x)

It had been held in many cases, that, on trials for libels, the facts of writing, printing, or publishing, and the truth of the innuendoes inserted in the proceedings, were the only matters to be submitted to the consideration of the jury: but the justice of such doctrine being questioned and ably arraigned, (m) the statute 32 Geo. 3. c. 60. was passed, which enacts "that on every such "trial, the jury sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict "of guilty or not guilty, upon the whole matter put in issue upon "such indictment or information; and shall not be required or "directed, by the court or Judge before whom such indictment or "information shall be tried, to find the defendant or defendants "guilty, merely on the proof of the publication by such defendant "or defendants of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense "ascribed to the same in such indictment or information." (n) "But it provides also, that the court or Judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, shall, according to their "or his discretion, give their or his opinion and directions to the "jury, on the matter in issue between the king and the defendant "or defendants, in like manner as in other criminal cases." (o)

It appears to have been considered that the Judge may tell the jury that they are to take the law from him, unless they are satisfied that he is wrong. (y)

The judgment in cases of libel is in the discretion of the court, as in most other cases of misdemeanors; and usually consists of fine, imprisonment, and the finding sureties to keep the peace. (p)

(k) Rex v. Lambert and Perry, 2
'Campb. 398.

(1) Rex v. White, 3 Campb. 98.
4x) Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. and A. 95.
(m) See the celebrated speeches of
Mr. Erskine, in the case of the Dean
of St. Asaph, 1 vol. of Ridgway's col.
p. 234, and 264.

(n) S 1.

(0) S. 2. By s. 3 it is provided that the jury may find a special verdict, in their discretion, as in other criminal

cases. And section 4. provides that defendants may move in arrest of judgment as before the passing of the act.

(y) Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. and A. 95.

(p) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 73. s. 21. 4 Bac. Abr. Libel (C) p. 459. Rex v. Middleton, Fort. 201. As to the punishment of leasing-making sedition and blasphemy in Scotland, see 6 Geo. 4.

c. 47.

In some cases prior to the statute 56 Geo. 3. c. 138. the offender

was also sentenced to the pillory.

libel a second

banishment.

In the case of a blasphemous or seditious libel, a second offence In cases of is more highly punishable by 60 Geo. 3. and 1 Geo. 4. c. 8. s. 4. blasphemous which enacts, that if any person shali be legally convicted of hav- or seditious ing composed, printed, or published, any blasphemous libel, or any offence is such seditious libel as aforesaid (i. e. by s. 1. a libel tending to bring punishable by into hatred or contempt the person of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the regent, or the government and constitution of the united kingdom, as by law established, or either house of Parliament, or to excite his Majesty's subjects to attempt the alteration of any matter in church or state, as by law established, otherwise than by lawful means), and shall after being so convicted offend a second time, and be thereof convicted before any commission of oyer and terminer, or gàol delivery, or in the court of King's Bench, such person may on such second conviction be adjudged, at the discretion of the court, either to suffer such punishment as may now by law be inflicted in cases of high misdemeanors, or to be banished from the united kingdom and all other parts of his Majesty's dominions for such term of years as the court in which such conviction shall take place shall order. And the fifth section further enacts, that in case any person, so sentenced to be banished, shall not depart from the united kingdom within thirty days after the pronouncing such sentence, for the purpose of going into such banishment, his Majesty may convey such person to such parts out of the dominions as his Majesty, with the advice of his privy council, shall direct.

[ocr errors]

And an of

end of forty

ported.

The sixth section of the statute enacts, that if any offender, who fender ordered shall be so ordered by any such court to be banished, shall, after to be banished, the end of forty days from the time such sentence and order has and being at been pronounced, be at large, within any part of the united king- large after the dom, or any other part of his Majesty's dominions, without some days within lawful cause, before the expiration of the term for which such his Majesty's offender shall have been so ordered to be banished, "every such dominions, "offender being so at large as aforesaid, being thereof lawfully may be trans"convicted, shall be transported to such place as shall be appointed by his Majesty for any term not exceeding fourteen "years." And such offender may be tried either before any justices of assize, oyer and terminer, great sessions or gaol delivery, for the county, &c. where such offender shall be apprehended, or where he was sentenced to banishment: and the clerk of assize, &c. is required to give a certificate containing the effect and substance only (omitting the formal part) of every indictment and conviction of such offender, and of the order for banishment, to the justices of assize, &c. where such offender shall be indicted, and such certificate is to be sufficient proof of the conviction and order for banishment of such offender.

former convic

A similar provision is also made as to a certificate of every in- Certificate of dictment and conviction of any offender convicted of having com- tion to be posed, &c. any blasphemous or seditious libel, which is to be given evidence. by the officer having the custody of the records, upon the request of the prosecutor on his Majesty's behalf, to the justices of assize,

Affidavits in

punishment.

&c. where such offender shall be indicted for any second offence, and is to be sufficient proof of the conviction of such offender. (a)

By this statute, in all cases in which any verdict or judgment by default shall be had against any person for publishing any blasphemous or seditious libel, the Judge or court may make an order for the seizure and carrying away and detaining all copies of the libel in the possession of the party, or of any other person named in the order for his use. (b)

If a libel imputes to a man a triable offence, affidavits of its mitigation of truth cannot be given in evidence in mitigation of punishment. But if a libel imports to be founded on certain newspaper reports, affidavits of the existence of such newspaper reports are admissible: and in such case affidavits of the falsehood of such reports cannot be received in aggravation. A libel imported to be founded on certain newspaper reports, and upon the foundation of those reports charged certain troops with acts of murder: after conviction the defendant offered affidavits that the newspapers did contain those reports, and also other affidavits that the facts were true. The former affidavits were received, because they explained the situation in which the defendant stood at the time he wrote the libel, and shewed the impression under which he wrote: but the latter were rejected, because the receiving them might deprive of a fair trial persons who might afterwards be tried for the murders; and if murders were committed, the proper course was to prosecute and bring to a fair trial, not to libel and create an unfair prejudice.(g)

(a) S. 7.

(b) See s. 1, 2. and also s. 3. as to Scotland. S. 8 and 9. provide for the limitation of actions brought for any thing done in the execution of the act.

By s. 10. the punishment of persons convicted of libel in Scotland is not to be altered.

(q) Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. and A. 314.

CHAPTER THE TWENTY-FIFTH.

OF RIOTS, ROUTS, AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES.

THE distinction between these offences appears to be, that a riot is a tumultuous meeting of persons upon some purpose which they actually execute with violence; a rout is a similar meeting upon a purpose which, if executed, would make them rioters, and which they actually make a motion to execute; and an unlawful assembly is a mere assembly of persons upon a purpose which, if executed, would make them rioters, but which they do not execute, nor make any motion to execute. (a) These offences may be treated of more at large in the order in which they have been mentioned.

I. A riot is described to be a tumultuous disturbance of the Of a riot. peace by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another against any who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprize of a private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same, in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. (b)

In some cases, in which the law authorizes force, it is not only lawful, but also commendable, to make use of it; as for a sheriff or constable, or perhaps even for a private person, to assemble a competent number of people in order with force to suppress rebels, or enemies, or rioters; and afterwards with such force actually to suppress them; or for a justice of peace, who has a just cause to

(a) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 65. s. 1, 8, 9. 3 Inst. 176. 4 Blac. Com. 146.

(b) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 65. s. 1. Three persons or more is the correct description of the number of persons necessary to constitute a riotous meeting; but it should be observed, that in Hawkins (c. 65. s. 2, 5, 7.) the words "more than three persons" are three times over inserted instead of "three persons or more;" which in 5 Burn. Just. Riot, S. 1. is remarked as an instance that, in a variety of matter, it is impossible for the mind of man to be always equally attentive. The description of riot stated in the text, and taken from the work of Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, is submitted as that which

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Where the
law authorizes
sembling will
not be riotous.

force, an as

« PreviousContinue »