said days next preceding the delivery thereof, and
of all sums of money received for or in respect of
such policies so issued during that quarter, and of
all sums of money received and not already accounted
for in respect of any other unstamped policies of
insurance against accident issued at any time before
the commencement of that quarter :

(e.) The duty imposed by this section shall be paid on the
delivery of the account, and unless then paid shall
be a debt due to Her Majesty from the person or
body by or on whose behalf the account is de-
livered:

(f.) In the case of wilful neglect to deliver such an account as is hereby required or to pay the duty in conformity with this section, the person or body shall be liable to pay to Her Majesty a sum equal to ten pounds per centum upon the amount of duty payable, and a like penalty for every month after the first month during which the neglect continues.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS.-An Act was passed in 1889, prohibiting the affixing, giving away in the streets, 52 & 53 or exhibiting of any picture, or printed or written matter Vict. c. 18. of an indecent or obscene character. This Act, as is clear from its wording, in no way affects newspapers or other publications. An attempt which was made to convict a newspaper under its provisions was dismissed by the magistrates, and the dismissal affirmed by the Queen's Bench Division: In re Pearce.

RIGHT TO REJECT ADVERTISEMENTS.-It follows from the fact that newspapers are liable civilly and criminally for advertisements appearing in their columns that the publisher or editor is entitled to alter the advertisements sent in so far as to remove any libellous or other

Times, March 26, 1890.

1 H. & N.

73.

(1856.)

illegal matter from them, or if the advertiser will not consent to this, to refuse to insert such advertisements altogether. Even in the case where a certain column or page has been leased to an advertiser for a given period, such refusal will not amount to a breach of contract, the contract really being only to insert such advertisements as the newspaper may legally publish. Accordingly when the editor or publisher of a newspaper refuses with good cause to insert advertisements sent by the lessee of a column or page, that will not prevent the newspaper recovering at any rate for the advertisements already inserted in pursuance of the contract, and probably the whole sum agreed to be paid for the lease of the column or page.

So far as advertisements are concerned this exact point does not seem to have been expressly decided, but the principle of it has been laid down on many occasions.

The case of Clay v. Yates may be cited. There the plaintiff, a printer, agreed to print a book for the defendant. When the body of the book had been set up, the defendant forwarded to the printer a dedication which the plaintiff believed-and which the jury afterwards found to be libellous. Thereupon the plaintiff refused to print the dedication, and demanded payment for the work already done. This the defendant refused, but on action it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to refuse to print libellous matter, and that, notwithstanding that refusal, he was entitled to recover under the agreement to print the book for the work done by him in fulfilment of that agreement. Martin, B., in his judgment said, "I cannot doubt that in this case, although the contract has never been performed, yet as the work was commenced on the retainers of the defendant, and in ignorance that part of it was unlawful, a duty arises to pay the plaintiff that part which he has performed." And Bramwell, B., said that the contract was to print a treatise and a

dedication. "That imposed on the defendant the obligation of furnishing a dedication such as the plaintiff could by law print." See also Cowan v. Milbourne.

INDEMNITY INVALID.-If, however, a newspaper does publish an illegal advertisement, and proceedings are in consequence taken against it, the proprietor cannot recover from the advertiser the damages, or fine, and costs, which he has had to pay. This is on the principle recognised in the leading case of Merryweather v. Nixian, that there is no contribution between joint wrongdoers or joint offenders. Each is responsible for the whole damage or offence, and if the person injured, or the Crown, chooses to proceed against one of the wrongdoers or offenders only, the others cannot be called upon by the one proceeded against to bear part of the damages or penalty. If, however, the advertisement be on the face of it of an innocent character, and the newspaper published it not knowing that there is anything illegal in it—as for instance, if it appears to refer to indifferent matters, but to those who know the circumstances conveys a libellous imputation on a person's character or creditthen possibly the newspaper, if proceeded against, may be entitled to recover the costs and damages to which it has been put. See, on this point, the concluding remarks of Lord Kenyon, C.J., in Merryweather v. Nixian.

But if the newspaper publish an advertisement, knowing it to be illegal—whether that illegality arises through its being libellous or being contrary to any of the Acts mentioned in this chapter-even an indemnity given by the advertiser to the newspaper, to secure it from loss through publishing the advertisement, will afford it no protection. An indemnity given to procure a breach of the law is illegal, and cannot be recovered

2 Bing.

N. C. 634. (1836.)

upon. The advertiser accordingly is not bound by it, and if he refuses to indemnify, the Courts will not compel him to do so.

As an example of this the case of Shackell v. Rosier may be cited. There the plaintiff was the proprietor of the John Bull newspaper. At the request of the defendant, Rosier, he published an article reflecting on one Chalmers, who had received the royal pardon and relief from a sentence of death for murder. Chalmers sued the plaintiff for this article, and the jury found it libellous and gave Chalmers £30 damages. In consideration of the plaintiff's publishing the article and defending the action, the defendant had undertaken to indemnify the plaintiff. After the verdict for Chalmers, he refused to carry out this undertaking. On action the Court held that the agreement to indemnify the plaintiff was given for an illegal consideration and could not therefore be enforced. (See also Colburn v. Patmore, p. 73.)

CORRUPT PRACTICES ACTS.-A new offence has been created by these Acts, in reference to the publication of a false statement concerning the retirement of a candidate for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate. This point will be fully dealt with (p. 185) in the chapter treating of libel as a criminal offence.

CHAPTER IV.

COPYRIGHT.

THE importance of the Law of Copyright in its application to the periodical press has greatly increased of late. There has grown up a class of publications composed largely or entirely of extracts from other newspapers, and the right of these papers to make use of matter for which others have paid may be called in question. The publication in ordinary newspapers of articles, sketches, and tales of permanent literary value, and altogether independent of passing events, has also raised the question of copyright as between the author and the newspaper proprietor on the one hand, or between the original purchaser and the "pirate" on the other. The practice of giving very extended extracts from a new work, in place of a review, has also threatened to involve the intervention of the law courts. For these reasons it will be necessary to discuss at some length the question of Copyright as it affects newspapers.

For present purposes copyright may be defined as the exclusive right to print and publish an actually existing literary composition. There is no copyright in mere ideas and projects. Copyright is a right which at Common Law attaches to a work when it is actually composed, and which by Statute Law attaches to it when it is actually printed and published. Neither the Common Law nor the Statute Law recognizes anything