day of May in the year of our Lord 1886, cometh into Court the said E. N., in her own proper person, and having heard the said indictment read, saith she is not guilty of the said premises in the said indictment above specified and charged upon her, and of this she the said E. N. puts herself upon the country, &c. "And for a further plea in this behalf, the said E. N. says that our Lady the Queen ought not further to prosecute the said indictment against her, because she says that it is true that the Reverend A. B. is the man who slept at her house on the fourth day of June last with the said X. Y. [and so on, stating facts showing the truth of every matter charged in the alleged libel]; and so the said E. N. says that the said alleged libel is true in substance and in fact. And the said E. N. further saith that before and at the time of publishing the said alleged libel, it was for the public benefit that the matters contained therein should be published to the extent that they were published by her, because the Reverend A. B. then was and still is a clergyman of the Church of England, in charge of the parish of—, in the said county, and the said X. Y. had been a servant of the said Reverend A. B. in the said parish, and because it was notorious in the said parish that the said X. Y. was a woman of immoral character, and because scandal and evil report existed in the said parish to the effect that she had had improper connection with the said Reverend A. B. whilst she was in his service, and also that he had since cohabited with her at in the county of Middlesex, where she passed under the name of Mrs. B., and at other places and under other names to such parishioners unknown, and because these reports created great scandal to the church, and greatly disquieted the parishioners of the said parish, and because it was of the greatest consequence to such parishioners to know whether these reports were true or false, and to obtain evidence which might be laid before the bishop of the diocese in which such parish was situated, in order that proceedings might be taken to inquire into the truth or falsity of such reports: wherefore the said E. N. being aware of the premises and being herself a member of the said Church of England, and believing it to be her duty to acquaint the said parishioners with the facts above mentioned as to the conduct of the said Reverend A. B., such facts being within her own knowledge, published the said alleged libel to the churchwarden of the said parish, and to the parish clerk, and to six of the parishioners of the said parish, all of whom were churchmen and interested therein, in order that the said alleged libel, or a copy thereof, should be forwarded to the said bishop, and a copy thereof was forwarded to the said bishop, who thereupon at once began to inquire into the truth or falsity of the said report; and the said E. N. in no way published the said alleged libel save to the said bishop, churchwarden, parish clerk, and parishioners aforesaid. Wherefore the said E. N. says it was for the public benefit that the matters charged in the said alleged libel, and all and every of them, should be so published by her as aforesaid. And this she is ready to verify, wherefore she prays judgment, and that by the Court here she may be dismissed and discharged from the said premises in the said indictment above specified." [See another precedent, 2 Cox, C. C. App. xxxii; and Crown Office Rules, 1886, Form, No. 81.] For a plea in abatement to an indictment for libel, see R. v. Gavan Duffy, 1 Cox, C. C. 282, and R. v. J. Mitchell, 11 L. T. (Old S.) 112. For a plea of abatement on the ground that other proceedings for the same libel were still pending, see R. v. J. Mitchell, 3 Cox, C. C. 94, 106; with demurrer thereto and joinder in demurrer (ib. 96), and replication (ib. 107). For a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court in a criminal case of libel, and a demurrer thereto, see R. v. Hon. Robert Johnson, 6 East, 583; 2 Smith, 591; 29 How. St. Tr. 103. No. 84. Replication to the above Pleas. And thereupon J. N. [the clerk of arraigns, &c.] who prosecutes for our said Lady the Queen in this behalf, as to the plea of the said E. N. by her firstly above pleaded, and whereof the said E. N. hath put herself upon the country, doth the like, &c. And as to the plea of the said E. N. by her secondly above pleaded, the said J. N., who prosecutes as aforesaid, says that our said Lady the Queen ought not by reason of anything in the said second plea alleged to be barred or precluded from prosecuting the said indictment against the said E. N., because he says that he denies the said several matters in the said second plea alleged, and saith that the same are not, nor are nor is any or either of them, true; but that the said E. N. of her own wrong, and without the cause and matter of defence in her said second plea alleged and set forth, committed the offence and published the said libel in manner and form as in the said indictment is mentioned. And this he, the said J. N., prays may be inquired of by the country, &c. And the said A. B. doth the like. [See another Precedent 2 Cox, C. C., App. xxxiv., and Crown Office Rules, 1886, Form, No. 83.] No. 85. Demurrer to a Plea. And J. N., who prosecutes for our said Lady the Queen in this behalf, as to the said plea of the said E. N. by her above pleaded, saith that the same, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are above pleaded and set forth, are not sufficient in law to bar or preclude our said Lady the Queen from prosecuting the said indictment against her the said E. N., and that our said Lady the Queen is not bound by the law of the land to answer the same; and this he, the said J. N., who prosecutes as aforesaid, is ready to verify: wherefore, for want of a sufficient plea in this behalf, he the said J. N. for our said Lady the Queen, prays judgment, and that the said E. N. may be convicted of the premises in the said indictment specified. [See Crown Office Rules, 1886, Form, No. 84.] No. 86. Joinder in Demurrer. And the said E. N. saith, that her said plea, by her above pleaded, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same. are above pleaded and set forth, are sufficient in law to bar and preclude our said Lady the Queen from prosecuting the said indictment against her the said E. N., and the said E. N. is ready to verify and prove the same, as the said Court here shall direct and award: wherefore, inasmuch as the said J. N., for our said Lady the Queen, hath not answered the said plea, nor hitherto in any manner denied the same, the said E. N. prays judgment, and that by the Court here she may be dismissed and discharged from the said premises in the said indictment specified. [See Crown Office Rules, 1886, Form, No. 85.] No. 87. Election Petition under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices In the High Court of Justice. King's Bench Division. The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 1895. 1. Your petitioner is a person who was a candidate at the above election. 2. The said election was holden on July 15th, 1904, when B., C., and your petitioner were candidates; and the returning officer has returned the said B. and C. as being duly elected. 3. And your petitioner says that during the said election the said B. by himself and his election agent and by other persons on his behalf made and published false statements of fact in relation to the personal character and conduct of your petitioner for the purpose of affecting the return of your petitioner at the said election. [Here insert particulars.] 4. And as to such of the said illegal practices as were committed by an agent of the said B. other than his election agent, your petitioner further says that B. or his election agent authorised or consented to the committing thereof by such other agent, or paid for circulation of the false statement constituting such illegal practice, and that the election of the said B. was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making and publishing of such false statements. [Here insert particulars.] 5. By reason of the matters hereinbefore set out the said B. was and is incapacitated from serving in the present Parliament for the said Borough of S, and the said election and return of the said B. were and are wholly null and void. Wherefore your petitioner prays that it may be determined that the said B. was not duly elected or returned, and that his election and return were and are wholly null and void. Dated the 2nd day of September, 1904. APPENDIX B. LEGISLATION AS TO LIBELS IN NEWSPAPERS, &c. SINCE the first edition of this book appeared, two important statutes have been passed modifying the law of libel in some material particulars, especially with regard to libels published in newspapers. In this Appendix, I propose to trace the history of this legislation, showing the causes which led to the introduction of the measures, and the extent to which the grievances complained of have been thereby remedied. In former days, newspaper proprietors had undoubtedly good reason to complain of the severity of the common law. The contents of a newspaper largely consist of reports of the proceedings of public meetings, or of meetings of various public bodies, such as town councils, vestries, boards of guardians and others. To reports of such meetings no privilege attached at common law. Reports of judicial or parliamentary proceedings were alone privileged. (Davison v. Duncan, (1857) 7 E. & B. 229; 26 L. J. Q. B. 104; Popham v. Pickburn, (1862) 7 H. & N. 891; 31 L. J. Ex. 133.) Hence, if a report containing any defamatory statement of fact was printed in a newspaper, the proprietor had no defence to an action for damages, unless he could prove the statement to be literally true. In the absence of any privilege, the fact that the report was fair and accurate would not avail him. In such an action the defendant no doubt could always give evidence to show that the report was correct, that the speaker had in fact uttered the words attributed to him in the paper. But such evidence only went in mitigation of damages; it was no defence to the action. On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff would not fail to impress upon the jury that it was the republication of the defamatory words in the newspaper which had really injured the reputation of the plaintiff. In one case of this kind the late Baron Huddleston in summing-up to the jury quoted with approval the following passage from page 382 of the 2nd |