46 L. J. C. P. 405; per Byles, J., in Turner v. Sullivan and others, 6 L. T. 130.) The privilege is not confined to reports in a newspaper or law magazine. It attaches equally to fair and accurate reports issued for any lawful reason in pamphlet form or in any other fashion. Though, of course, if there be any other evidence of malice, the mode and extent of publication will be taken into consideration with such other evidence on that issue. (Milissich v. Lloyds, 46 L. J. C. P. 404; Salmon v. Isaac, 20 L. T. 885; Riddell v. Clydesdale Horse Society, 12 Ct. of Session Cases, 4th Series, 976.) Nor does it matter by whom the report is published ; the privilege is the same, as a matter of law, for a private individual as for a newspaper. (Per Brett, L. J., 46 L. J. C. P. 407.) "I do not think the public press has any peculiar privilege." (Per Bramwell, L. J., 5 Ex. D. 56.) "A newspaper has no greater privilege in such a matter than any ordinary person-any person is privileged in publishing such a report if he does so merely to inform the public." (Per Hannen, J., in Salmon v. Isaac, 20 L. T. at p. 886; and see 3 Times L. R. 245.) Illustrations. In a former action for libel brought by the plaintiff, the then defendant had justified. The report of this trial set out the libel in full, and gave the evidence for the defendant on the justification, concluding, however, by stating that the plaintiff had à verdict for £30. The jury, under the direction of Lord Abinger, took the " bane" and the " 'antidote" together, and found a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that the report when taken altogether was not injurious to the plaintiff. And the Court refused a rule for a new trial. Chalmers v. Payne, 5 Tyrw. 766; 1 Gale, 69; 2 C. M. & R. 156. The plaintiff and M. were convicted of a conspiracy to extort money from B.; the report of the trial stated that the plaintiff had written a particular letter, which the plaintiff contended had not in fact been written by him, but by his fellow-conspirator, M. Held, that as the jury had convicted them of a common purpose, and the letter was written in furtherance of that common purpose and set out in the indictment as an overt act of the conspiracy, it made no difference which of the two wrote it; and that the error, if error it were, was immaterial. Stockdale v. Turte and others, 4 A. & E. 1016. Alexander v. N. E. R. Co., 6 B. & S. 340; 34 L. J. Q. B. 152; 13 A barrister, editing a book on the Law of Attorneys, referred to a case, Re Blake, as reported in 30 L. J. Q. B. 32, and stated that Mr. Blake was struck off the rolls for misconduct. He was in fact only suspended for two years, as appeared from the Law Journal report. The publishers were held liable for this carelessness, although of course neither they nor the writer bore Mr. Blake any malice. Damages £100. Blake v. Stevens and others, 4 F. & F. 232; 11 L. T. 543. Where the report of a trial gave none of the evidence, but only an abridgment of the speeches of counsel, and the defendant pleaded that it was still in substance a true report of the trial; such plea was held bad on demurrer. Flint v. Pike, 4 B. & Cr. 473; 6 D. & R. 528. Kane v. Mulvany, Ir. R. 2 C. L. 402. A report is not privileged which does not give the evidence, but merely sets out the circumstances "as stated by the counsel" for one party. Saunders v. Mills, 6 Bing. 213; 3 M. & P. 520. Woodgate v. Ridout, 4 F. & F. 202. Still less will it be privileged, if after so stating the case the only account given of the evidence is that the witnesses "proved all that had been stated by the counsel for the prosecution." Lewis v. Walter, 4 B. & Ald. 605. The Morning Post, in reporting proceedings taken against the plaintiff in the Westminster Police Court, stated that certain facts "appeared from the evidence." No evidence had in fact been given of them; but they had been stated in the opening of the solicitor for the prosecution. On these facts, Lord Coleridge, C. J., directed the jury to find for the defendant. But the Divisional Court granted a new trial, on the ground that there was a substantial discrepancy between the report and what really occurred, and that the question should therefore have been left to the jury whether the report was a fair one; and this decision was affirmed on appeal. Ashmore v. Borthwick, 49 J. P. 792; 2 Times L. R. 113, 209. Where a report in the Times of a preliminary investigation before a magistrate set out at length the opening of the counsel for the prosecution, but entirely omitted the examination and cross-examination of the prosecutor, the only witness, merely saying that "his testimony supported the statement of his counsel," the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £10. Pinero v. Goodlake, 15 L. T. 676. [N.B. The headnote to this case is strangely misleading: the proceedings were not ex parte; the defendant, himself a solicitor, was present and crossexamined the witnesses. The important monosyllable "no" appears to be omitted in the report of the argument of Coleridge, Q. C., p. 677.] The mother of a lady, who was dead and buried, applied to the coroner on affidavits for an order that the body might be exhumed; the affidavits imputed that she had been murdered by her husband. Thereupon the coroner issued his warrant for exhumation. A newspaper reported this fact, and proceeded to state the contents of these affidavits in a sensational paragraph, commencing "From inquiries made by our reporter it appears that the deceased," &c. The reporter had made no inquiries; he had merely copied the affidavits. He was convicted and fined £50. R. v. Andrew Gray, 26 J. P. 663. Where the report of a criminal trial gave the speech for the prosecution, a brief résumé of the speech of the prisoner's counsel, who called no witnesses, and the whole of the Lord Chief Baron's summing up in extenso; but it did not give the evidence except in so far as it was detailed in the judge's summing up; Lord Coleridge, C. J., held the report necessarily unfair because incomplete, and refused to leave the question of fairness to the jury. But the Court of Appeal held that he was wrong in so doing; that it is sufficient to publish a fair abstract of the trial, and that the judge's summing up was presumably such an abstract; that the question of fairness must be left to the jury, and that therefore there must be a new trial. Milissich v. Lloyds (C. A.), 46 L. J. C. P. 404; 36 L. T. 423; 13 Cox, An accurate report of a portion of a judicial proceeding will still be privileged, if it does not purport to be a report of the whole. Thus, where a trial lasts more than one day, reports published in the newspapers each morning are protected. Where a man publishes a portion only, when it is in his power to publish the whole, this fragmentary publication will be evidence of malice, if the part selected and published tell more against the plaintiff than a report of the whole trial would have done, e.g., if the opening speech of one counsel or the evidence on one side only were published after the trial was over. But the judgment or summing-up of the learned judge may always be separately published; for it is a distinct part of the proceedings, not affected by any other, complete in itself and fairly severable from the rest; it is also presumably a fair summary of the whole proceedings. (Milissich v. Lloyds (C. A.), 46 L. J. C. P. 404; 36 L. T. 423; 13 Cox, C. C. 575.) Illustrations. Where judicial proceedings last more than one day, and their publication is not expressly forbidden by the Court, a report published in a newspaper every morning of the proceedings of the preceding day, is privileged, if fair and accurate; but all comment on the case must be suspended till the proceedings terminate. Lewis v. Levy, E. B. & E. 537; 27 L. J. Q. B. 282; 4 Jur. N. S. 970. The sentence of a court martial may be read at the head of every regiment. Per Heath, J., in Oliver v. Bentinck, 3 Taunt. at p. 459. The plaintiff had sued defendants in the Chancery Division, and the action was dismissed with costs. Defendants thereupon published, in the form of a pamphlet, a verbatim report of the whole judgment, taken from the shorthand writer's notes, but omitting all the evidence and speeches on either side. The jury having negatived malice, the Court of Appeal held the pamphlet privileged. MacDougall v. Knight & Son (C. A.), 17 Q. B. D. 636; 55 L. J. Q. B. 464; 34 W. R. 727; 55 L. T. 274. A weekly paper stated, on December 21st, 1884, that plaintiff had been brought up at the Nottingham Police Court on the preceding Monday (15th) and charged with obtaining money on false pretences, and that "a number of other charges will be brought against him." It omitted all mention of the fact that plaintiff had been brought up again on remand on the preceding Thursday (18th) and triumphantly discharged. The jury awarded the plaintiff £45 in addition to the £5 which defendant had paid into Court under Lord Campbell's Act. Grimwade v. Dicks and others, 2 Times L. R. 627. Where the plaintiff in a trade-mark case failed on all points but one, and afterwards published a "caution" to the trade, which stated the effect of the judgment accurately so far as it was in his favour, but omitted all allusion to the parts of the judgment in defendant's favour, North, J., held the report unfair, and granted an injunction restraining its circulation. Hayward & Co. v. Hayward & Sons, 34 Ch. D. 198; 56 L. J. Ch. 287; 35 W. R. 392; 55 L. T. 729. The reporter must add nothing of his own. He must not state his opinion of the conduct of the parties, or impute motives therefor: above all, he must not insinuate that a particular witness committed perjury. This is not a report of what occurred; it is the comment of the writer on what occurred, and to this no privilege attaches. Often no doubt such comments may be justified on another ground, that they are fair and bona fide criticism on a matter of public interest and are therefore not libellous. (See ante, c. II. pp. 32-52.) But such observations, to which quite different considerations apply, should not be mixed up with the history of the case. "If any comments are made, they should not be made as part of the report. The report should be confined to what takes place in Court, and the two things, report and comment, should be kept separate." (Per Lord Campbell, C. J., in Andrews v. Chap man, 3 C. & K. 288.) And all sensational headings to reports should be avoided. Illustrations. The captain of a vessel was charged before a magistrate with an indecent assault upon a lady on board his own ship. The defendant's newspaper published a report of the case, interspersed with comments which assumed the guilt of the captain, commended the conduct of the lady, and generally tended to inflame the minds of the public violently against the accused. Held, that no privilege attached to such comments and that the report was neither fair nor dispassionate. R. v. Fisher and others, 2 Camp. 563. And see R. v. Lee, 5 Esp. 123. R. v. Fleet, 1 B. & Ald. 379. It is libellous to publish a highly-coloured account of criminal proceedings, mixed with the reporter's own observations and conclusions upon what passed in court, headed "Judicial Delinquency," and containing an insinuation that the plaintiff ("our hero") had committed perjury: and it is no justification to pick out such parts of the libel as contain an account of the trial, and to plead that such parts are true and accurate, leaving the extraneous matter altogether unjustified. Stiles v. Nokes, 7 East, 493; same case sub nomine Carr v. Jones, 3 Smith, 491. The report of a trial set out the speech for the counsel for the prosecution, and then added:-" The first witness was R. P., who proved all that had been stated by the counsel for the prosecution:" but owing to the absence of a piece of formal evidence in no way bearing on the merits of the case, "the jury, under the direction of the learned judge, were obliged to give a verdict of acquittal, to the great regret of a crowded court, on whom the statement and the evidence, so far as it went, made a strong impression of their guilt." Held, that no privilege applied. Lewis v. Walter, 4 B. & Ald. 605. Roberts v. Brown, 10 Bing. 519; 4 Moo. & Sc. 407. On an examination into the sufficiency of sureties on an election petition, under 9 Geo. IV. c. 22, s. 7, affidavits were put in to show that one of them (the plaintiff) was embarrassed in his affairs, and an insufficient surety. A newspaper report of the examination proceeded to ask why the plaintiff, being wholly unconnected with the borough, should take so much trouble about the matter. "There can be but one answer to these very natural and reasonable queries, he is hired for the occasion." Held, that this question and answer formed no part of the report; and therefore enjoyed no privilege; and that it was properly left to the jury to say whether they were a fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interest in that borough. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £100. Cooper v. Lawson, 8 A. & E. 746; 1 W. W. & H. 601; 2 Jur. 919; 1 P. & D. 15. The Observer gave a true and faithful account of some proceedings in the Insolvent Debtors Court, but headed it with the words "Shameful conduct of |