whole unfair and inaccurate (y). As regards the report of a judgment standing by itself, it would appear that "a fair and accurate report of the judgment in an action, published bonâ fide and without malice, is privileged, although not accompanied by any report of the evidence given at the trial" (2). The report must be strictly confined to what actually took place in Court. The reporter must not add any comments of his own; if he does, no privilege will attach thereto (a). "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" (b). The report of a trial should never be preceded by a title which exaggerates the real facts of the case. If it is, even though the report itself is fair and accurate, damages may be recovered for the libellous title. Thus, damages have been recovered for heading the report of a case "Judicial Delinquency" (e), "Shameful conduct (y) Milissich v. Lloyds (1877), 46 L. J. C. P. 404; 36 L. T. 423; 13 Cox, C. C. 575. (2) Per Fry, L. J., in Macdougall v. Knight (1890), L. R. 25 Q. B. D. at p. 11. See, however, the observations of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bramwell in Macdougall v. Knight (1889), 14 App. Cas. at pp. 200-203. (a) Cooper v. Lawson (1838), 8 A. & E. 746; 2 Jur. 919. (b) Per Lord Campbell, C. J., in Andrews v. Chapman (1853), 3 C. & K. at p. 288. (c) Stiles v. Nokes (1806), 7 East, 493. 66 of an attorney"(d), "An honest lawyer" (e), Wilful and corrupt perjury"(ƒ); the facts in each case not justifying such a description (g). ART. 27.-Extracts from registers kept pursuant to statute. The publication of an extract from a register kept pursuant to statute is privileged, provided that it is fair and accurate, but such privilege will be rebutted by proof that defendant published such extract maliciously (h). NOTE. "Where there is a register kept by virtue of an Act of Parliament for the purpose of giving information to the public, then, if a person makes a copy of it and publishes it, although he does so for the purpose of warning the public or tradesmen about to give credit, yet if all that he does is to publish a copy of the register which is intended to be a public document it is a privileged publication "(i). "The publication of a mere ex (d) Clement v. Lewis and others (1820), 3 Br. & Bing. 297; 7 Moore, 200; Bishop v. Latimer (1861), 4 L. T. 775. (e) Boydell v. Jones (1838), 7 Dowl. 210; 1 Horn & H. 408; 4 M. & W. 446. (f) Lewis v. Levy (1851), 27 L. J. Q. B. 282; E. B. & E. 537. (g) See also pp. 72, 73, supra. (h) Fleming v. Newton (1848), 1 H. L. C. 343. As to the meaning of "maliciously," see Article 36, p. 138, infra. (i) Per Lord Esher, M. R., in Searles v. Scarlett (1892), L. R. 2 Q. B. at p. 60, confirming Fleming v. Newton (1848), 1 H. L. C. 363, q. v. tract from a record of judgments kept pursuant to statute is on the same footing as a fair report of a judicial proceeding "(k), and is therefore privileged, unless the plaintiff can prove that it was published maliciously. As examples of publications within the protection of the above rule may be mentioned the publication by trade or mercantile journals of receiving orders under the Bankruptcy Act, extracts from registers of bills of sale, County Court judgments, &c. ART. 28. Reports of proceedings in parliament. A report of proceedings in either House of Parliament is privileged, provided that it is fair and accurate; but such privilege will be rebutted, if plaintiff prove that defendant published such report maliciously (1). NOTE. As to the meaning of fair and accurate, (k) Per Pollock, B., in Williams v. Smith (1888), L. R. 22 Q. B. D. at p. 139. This case was tried before the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888, became law, and therefore the learned judge was referring to the qualified privilege which fair reports of judicial proceedings have always obtained at common law. See p. 103, supra. (1) Wason v. Walter (1868), L. R. 4 Q. B. 73; 38 L. J. Q. B. 34. see p. 104, supra. The above rule was for a long time doubtful, but it is now clearly and satisfactorily settled by Wason v. Walter (m); in which case the plaintiff sued the proprietor of the "Times" for publishing a report of a debate in the House of Lords commenting severely on plaintiff's conduct in procuring the presentation of a petition to the House of Lords which charged a high judicial officer with misconduct, and it was held that the report was privileged. ART. 29.-Reports of proceedings of public meetings. A report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a meeting bonâ fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose, and for the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern, whether the admission thereto be general or restricted, is privileged, provided that (1) the report is fair and accurate; (2) the matter complained of is not blasphemous or indecent; and (3) the matter complained of is of public concern, or the publication thereof is for the public benefit. This privilege may be rebutted by proof (1) that the report was published maliciously; or (2) that the defendant has after request refused or neglected to insert in his newspaper a reasonable letter or state (m) (1868), L. R. 4 Q. B. 73; 38 L. J. Q. B. 34. ment by way of contradiction or explanation of such report (n). NOTE 1.-The law contained in this article was introduced by the Act of 1888 (n). As to the meaning of the term newspaper, see p. 98, supra; and of the words fair and accurate, p. 104, supra. In order to establish privilege for the publication of proceedings at a public meeting the defendant will have to prove (a) that the report is fair and accurate; (b) that the meeting was bonâ fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose, and for the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern; (c) that the matter complained of is of public concern, or that the publication of the matter complained of is for the public benefit. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether it will be necessary, in order to establish privilege for the publication in a newspaper of any of the proceedings specified in sect. 4 of the Act of 1888, to prove (1) that the matter is of public concern, and (2) that the publication thereof is for the public benefit; or whether it will be sufficient to prove either (1) or (2). At first sight the former construction appears to be the correct one, but it is submitted that a careful consideration of the words of the section (o) will prove that this is not so. In support of the latter contention, an opinion of counsel has been (n) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4, pp. 243, 244, infra. |