The plaintiff was a dissenting minister. His maidservant gave birth to an illegitimate child and accused him of being its father. She took out an affiliation summons against him, which was dismissed for want of corroboration. The defendants inserted articles and letters in their paper, which insisted that the girl's story was true, and alluded to the plaintiff as "a gay deceiver," &c. Damages 2,0007. The Divisional Court refused to set aside the verdict or to reduce the amount of damages. Roberts v. Owen and others, (1888) 5 Times L. R. 11; 53 J. P. 502. A newspaper may comment on the evidence given by any particular witness in any inquiry on a matter of public interest; but may not go the length of declaring such evidence to be "maliciously or recklessly false." Verdict for the plaintiff; damages 2507. Hedley v. Barlow, 4 F. & F. 224. A newspaper may comment on the conduct of magistrates in dismissing a case without hearing the whole of the evidence, or in committing the prisoner for trial on insufficient evidence; but it must not impute that in so doing the magistrates acted deliberately and consciously from political motives. Hibbins v. Lee, 4 F. & F. 243; 11 L. T. 541. No comment is admissible on any facts or documents which were not put in evidence at the trial. Helsham v. Blackwood, 11 C. B. 111; 20 L. J. C. P. 187; 15 Jur. 861. The details of a long protracted squabble between a professional singer and a great composer do not become matters of public interest, merely because the former ultimately applies to a police magistrate for a summons against the latter. Weldon v. Johnson, Times, May 27th, 1884. The Morning Post published an article on a trial which had greatly excited public attention, giving a highly coloured account of the conduct of the attorneys on one side, concluding with the sweeping condemnation ::- Messrs. Quirk, Gammon, and Snap, were fairly equalled, if not undone," alluding to the notorious firm of pettifoggers in "Ten Thousand a Year." This account of plaintiff's conduct was taken almost verbatim from the speech of counsel on the other side, and no allusion was made to the evidence subsequently produced to rebut his statements. Verdict for the plaintiff; damages 1,0007. Woodgate v. Ridout, 4 F. & F. 202. 3. Public Institutions and Local Authorities. The working of all public institutions, such as colleges, hospitals, asylums, homes, is a matter of public interest, especially where such institutions appeal to the public for subscriptions, or are supported by the rates, or are, like our Universities, national property. The management of local affairs by the various local authorities, e.g., county councils, district councils, town councils, boards of guardians, vestries, &c., is a matter of public, though it may not be of universal, concern. "Whatever is matter of public concern when administered in one of the Government departments, is matter of public concern when administered by the subordinate authorities of a particular district. It is one of the characteristic features of the government of this country that, instead of being centralised, many important branches of it are committed to the conduct of local authorities. Thus, the business of counties, and that of cities and boroughs, is, to a great extent, conducted by local and municipal government. It is not, therefore, because the matter under consideration is one which in its immediate consequence affects only a particular neighbourhood that it is not a matter of public concern. The management of the poor and the administration of the poor-law in each local district are matters of public interest. In this management the medical attendance on the poor is a matter of infinite moment, and consequently the conduct of a medical officer of the district may be of the greatest importance in that particular district, and so may concern the public in general." (Per Cockburn, C.J., in Purcell v. Sowler, 2 C. P. D. at p. 218; and see the remarks of the same learned judge in Cox v. Feeney, 4 F. & F. at p. 20.) Illustrations. 66 'The management of the poor and the administration of the poor-law in each local district are matters of public interest." Per Cockburn, C.J., in Purcell v. Sowler, 2 C. P. D. 218; 46 L. J. C. P. 308; 25 W. R. 362; 36 L. T. 416. And see South Hetton Coal Co., Limited v. North Eastern News Association, (1894) 1 Q. B. 133; 63 L. J. Q. B. 293; 42 W. R. 322; 69 L. T. 844; 58 J. P. 196; 9 R. 240. The official conduct of a way-warden may be freely criticised in the local press. Harle v. Catherall, 14 L. T. 801. The manner in which a coroner's officer treats the poor relatives of the deceased when serving them with a summons for an inquest, and the behaviour of such officer in Court, are matters of public concern. Per Bowen, J., in Sheppard v. Lloyd, Daily Chronicle, March 11th, 1882. The Charity Commissioners sent an inspector to inquire into the working of a medical college at Birmingham. He made a report containing passages defamatory of the plaintiff, one of the professors. The mismanagement of the college continued and increased. The warden at last filed a bill to administer the funds in Chancery. Thereupon the defendant, the proprietor of a local paper, procured an official copy of the report of the inspector, and published it verbatim in his paper. This was nearly three years after the report had been written. The plaintiff contended that this was a wanton revival of stale matter which could not be required for public information; but Cockburn, C.J., left it to the jury to say whether public interest in the matter had not rather increased than declined in the interval. Verdict for the defendant. Cox v. Feeney, 4 F. & F. 13. But the conduct of the trustee of a private corporation, as such trustee, is not a matter of public interest. Wilson v. Fitch, 41 Cal. 363. 4. Ecclesiastical Affairs. A bishop's government of his diocese, a rector's management of his parish, or of the parochial school, are matters of public interest. So is the manner in which public worship is celebrated in the Established Church. But a charitable organisation privately established by the rector in the parish is not a fit subject for public comment. Illustrations. The press may comment on the fact that the incumbent of a parish has, contrary to the wishes of the churchwarden, allowed books to be sold in the church during service, and cooked a chop in the vestry after the service was over. Kelly v. Tinling, L. R. 1 Q. B. 699; 35 L. J. Q. B. 231; 14 W. R. 51; 13 L. T. 255; 12 Jur. N. S. 940. But where a vicar started a clothing society in his parish, expressly excluding all Dissenters from its benefits, it was held that this was essentially a private society, the members of which might manage it as they pleased, without being called to account by any one outside: and that therefore a Dissenting organ was not justified in commenting on the limits which the vicar had imposed on the desire of his parishioners to clothe the poor. Gathercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 319; 15 L. J. Ex. 179; 10 Jur. 337. And see Walker v. Brogden, 19 C. B. N. S. 65; 11 Jur. N. S. 671; 13 W. R. 809; 12 L. T. 495. Booth v. Briscoe, 2 Q. B. D. 496; 25 W. R. 838. The Court in Gathercole v. Miall, were equally divided on the question whether sermons preached in open church, but not printed and published, were matter for public comment. If the sermon itself dealt with matters of public interest, I apprehend it would be. 5. Books, Pictures, dc. "A man who publishes a book challenges criticism." (Per Cockburn, C.J., in Strauss v. Francis, 4 F. & F. 1114; 15 L. T. 675.) Therefore all fair and honest criticism on any published book is not libellous. But the critic must not go out of his way to attack the private character of the author. (Fraser v. Berkeley, 7 C. & P. 621.) So, too, it is not libellous fairly and honestly to criticise a painting publicly exhibited, or the architecture of any public building, however strong the terms of censure used may be. (Thompson v. Shackell, Moo. & Mal. 187.) 66 Illustrations. The Athenæum published a critique on a novel written by the plaintiff, describing it as the very worst attempt at a novel that has ever been perpetrated," and commenting severely on "its insanity, self-complacency, and vulgarity, its profanity, its indelicacy (to use no stronger word), its display of bad Latin, bad French, bad German, and bad English," and its abuse of persons living and dead. After Erle, C.J., had summed up the case, the plaintiff withdrew a juror. Strauss v. Francis, (No. 1) 4 F. & F. 939. See Sir John Carr v. Hood, 1 Camp. 355, n. The Athenæum thereupon published another article stating their reason for consenting to the withdrawal of a juror, which was in fact that they considered the plaintiff would have been unable to have paid them their costs, had they gained a verdict. The plaintiff thereupon brought another action which was tried before Cockburn, C.J., and the jury found a verdict for the defendants. Strauss v. Francis, (No. 2) 4 F. & F. 1107; 15 L. T. 674. To accuse a dramatic author falsely of having written an immoral play is a libel on him, not fair comment on his play. Merivale and wife v. Carson, 20 Q. B. D. 275; 36 W. R. 231; 58 L. T. 331; 52 J. P. 261. A charge of plagiarism is not a fair comment. Per Vaughan Williams, L.J., in Joynt v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co., (1904) 2 K. B. at p. 297. It is doubtful how far a book printed for private circulation only may be criticised. Per Pollock, C.B., in Gathercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 334; 15 L. J. A comic picture of the author of a book, as author, bowing beneath the weight of his volume, is no libel; though a personal caricature of him as he appeared in private life would be. Sir John Carr v. Hood, 1 Camp. 355, n. The articles which appear in a newspaper and its general tone and style may be the subject of adverse criticism, as well as any other literary production; but no attack should be made on the private character of any writer on its staff. Heriot v. Stuart, 1 Esp. 437. Stuart v. Lovell, 2 Stark. 93. Campbell v. Spottiswoode, 3 F. & F. 421; 32 L. J. Q. B. 185; 3 B. & S. 769; 9 Jur. N. S. 1069; 11 W. R. 569; 8 L. T. 201. The greatest art critic of the day wrote and published in Fors Clavigera an article on the pictures in the Grosvenor Gallery, in which the following passage occurred: "Lastly, the mannerisms and errors of these pictures [alluding to the pictures of Mr. Burne Jones], whatever may be their extent, are never affected or indolent. The work is natural to the painter, however strange to us, and is wrought with the utmost conscience of care, however far to his own or our desire the result may yet be incomplete. Scarcely as much can be said for any other pictures of the modern school; their eccentricities are almost always in some degree forced, and their imperfections gratuitously, if not impertinently, indulged For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen and heard much of cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." The jury considered the words "wilful imposture " as just overstepping the line of fair criticism, and found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages one farthing. Each party had to pay his own costs. Whistler v. Ruskin, Times, Nov. 26th and 27th, 1878. The plaintiff was a professor of architecture in the Royal Academy. The defendant published an account of a new order of architecture called “the Boeotian," said to be invented by the plaintiff, whom he termed "the Boeotian professor." He set forth several absurd principles as the rules of this new order, illustrating them by examples of buildings all of which were the works of the plaintiff. The jury, under the direction of Lord Tenterden, C.J., found a verdict for the defendant. Soane v. Knight, Moo. & Mal. 74. And see Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235. 6. Theatres, Concerts, and Public Entertainments. All theatrical and musical performances, flower shows, concerts, public balls, &c., may be freely criticised, provided that the comments be not malevolent, and no misstatement of fact be made. Illustrations. The prosecutor, who was wholly unconnected with the stage, got up what he called "a Dramatic Ball." The company was disorderly and far from select. No actor or actress of any reputation was present at the ball, or took any share in the arrangements. The Era, the special organ of the theatrical profession, published an indignant article, commenting severely on the conduct of the prosecutor in starting such a ball for his own profit, and particularly in calling such an assembly" a Dramatic Ball." See the article, 44 J. P. 377. Criminal proceedings were taken against the editor of the Era, but the jury found him Not guilty. R. v. Ledger, Times, Jan. 14th, 1880. And see Dibdin v. Swan and Bostock, (1793) 1 Esp. 28. The defendant wrote an article in a newspaper advising an actor to return to "his old profession, that of a waiter." This actor had never been a waiter. Damages 1007. Duplany v. Davis, (1886) 3 Times L. R. 184. A newspaper, commenting on a flower show, denounced one exhibitor by name |