« PreviousContinue »
try the fairness or unfairness of every report appearing in the newspapers.
M. brought an action against G. to recover damages for breach of an agreement to supply 250 additional subscribers to the Choir newspaper. The trial took place before Brett, J., at the Guildhall, when a question arose as to the validity of the alleged agreement. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial, or to have the verdict entered against him on the money counts in the declaration only, these being in respect of copies of the newspaper actually supplied to him. At a concert given shortly afterwards at St. James's Hall, W. acting, as was admitted, as the defendant's agent, caused a printed paper to be placed in every seat, commenting on the trial, and giving, generally, a version of the facts favourable to the defendant, and not strictly accurate. Thereupon a motion was made for a rule to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against W. for contempt of Court. The Court of Common Pleas refused the rule; because, if, looking to the mode of distribution, and its general character and object (to explain the absence of an orchestra at the concert owing to the expenses of the action), the paper could constitute a contempt at all, which the Court doubted, the time in which a new trial could be moved for had not, indeed, expired, but the motion might or might not be made, and there was nothing pending before the Court at all.+
D. brought an action against the proprietor of the Era for an alleged libel. The trial resulted in a verdict of forty shillings for the plaintiff. The defendant gave notice of an
* Brook v. Evaris, 1860, 29 L.J. Ch. 616; 8 W.R. 688. See Buenos Ayrus Gas Co. v. Wilde, 1880, 42 L.T. 657; 29 W.R. 43.
+ Metzler v. Gounod (Mrs. Weldon's Case), 1874, 30 L.T. 264. Judgment of Keating, J., Brett and Denman, J.J., concurring
application for a new trial, but published in the Era an article censuring and ridiculing the jury for their disregard of the summing up of Lord Coleridge, C. J., before whom the trial took place. On an affidavit verifying this article, a motion was made that the defendant might be punished for contempt. The gist of the argument was that the article was an interference with the course of justice in that it plainly suggested that a second jury would be fools if they did not find for the defendant. The Divisional Court declined to accede to the application. There was an undoubted right, said Field, J., to make comments upon the conduct of Judges or Jurors, and it was admitted that if the article had been published before the notice of an application for a new trial, it could not have been complained of. But the liability of the writer could not depend upon a notice having been given of an application for a new trial. Suppose the new trial refused by the Court, and an appeal brought. Suppose an appeal carried to the House of Lords. Was the right of comment to be in suspense for two or three years? The case would by that time have lost all interest. In that view, the right of comment would not be of much value. The true principle was that the article must be such as (in reasonable possibility) to influence the trial of the case and prevent the tribunal from coming to a just and impartial decision. If on the morning of, or before, the trial an article had appeared indicating that the jury would be foolish unless they found according to the view of the writer, that would be an interference with the course of justice, and he should be prepared to exercise the power of the Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice by means of a gross contempt. Stephen, J., expressed his opinion to the same effect, and noticed, as a sufficient ground for refusing the application, the considerable time which, in any event, must elapse before a new trial took place, and the consequent improbability that the article would then have any
influence on possible jurors, or, through them, on the course of justice.*
When an indictment has been found against a number of persons, the whole trial constitutes one proceeding, though, in point of fact, the defendants sever in their challenges and are tried seriatim. The proceeding does not terminate till the last prisoner has taken his trial.+
Where the husband had obtained a decree of judicial separation, a motion for attachment against the wife upon the ground of molestation after the decree was refused by Butt, J., who held that his functions were at an end, and that he had no jurisdiction,—the case was one for a police magistrate. I
* Re Ledger, Dallas v. Ledger, 1887, 52 J.P. 328; 4 T.L.R. 432 ; Metzler v. Gounod, u.s.,
not cited, In Corkery v. Hickson, 1876, I.R. 10 C.L. 174, Q.B., Whiteside, C.J., O'Brien and Fitzgerald, J.J., the defendant publishing, pending a respite to enable him to move for a new trial, a pamphlet discussing in a spirit of censure the entire case, the jury, the counsel, and the evidence, was, on motion, fined £20 with costs. The point that, substantially, there was no case pending before the Court was not taken. See also Felkin v. Herbert, 1863, 33 L.J. Ch. 294.
+ Rex v. Clement, 1821, 4 B. & Ald. 218 (the trial of the Cato Street conspirators).
Smith v. Smith, 1889, 59 L.J. P. 15.
III.-FOREIGN MARITIME LAWS: III. SPAIN.
CODE OF COMMERCE. BOOK III.
Tit. III. (continued).
(3.) Of the Duties of the Shipper. ART. 679. A charterer of a whole ship may sub-charter wholly or partially for the periods that he pleases, and the captain cannot refuse to accept the cargo tendered by the sub-charterers, provided always that the terms of the original charter are observed, and that the whole chartered freight is paid to the person letting the ship, even if the ship is not fully laden, having regard, however, to the provisions of the next Article.
B. Bk. II., 72, G. 606, I. 563, N. 45, P. 552, R. 1031, Sw. 116.
393, 680. A charterer who does not load the whole of the cargo that he has contracted to ship, will pay freight on what he ought to have loaded, unless the captain has taken other goods to complete the cargo, in which case the difference in freight, if any, will be carried to the charterer's account.
B. Bk. II., 72, 75, F. 287, 288, G. 579, 580, 589, I. 564, N. 47, P. 552, 553 (1), R. 1032, Sw. 87. E. 105.
News. 73, 75, M. and P. 298, Morris v. Levison, i C.P.D. 155, Macl. 348.
681. If a shipper loads goods that are of a different description from those he declared at the time of entering into the charter-party, without the knowledge of the person letting the ship or the captain, and in consequence thereof the person letting the ship or other shippers are prejudiced by confiscation, embargo, detention, or other cause, the person
causing the loss is liable to make complete compensation out of his cargo and other property to all who have sustained damage.
B. Bk. II., 88, G. 563, 564, H. 477, R. 1033, Sw. 82.
682. If the goods are shipped for the purposes of an illicit trade, and are put on board with the knowledge of the person letting the ship or the captain, these latter will be, jointly with the owner of the goods, responsible for all loss which may arise from such shipment to other shippers, and, even if they have so agreed, they cannot demand from the shipper (of the illegal goods) any compensation for loss that the ship sustains.
B. Bk. II., 88. M. and P. 134.
683. If the vessel puts in to a port in distress, for repairs to the hull, machinery, or apparel of the ship, the shippers must wait till the vessel is repaired, but they may discharge the cargo at their own expense if they think fit.
If the shippers, a Court of Law, a Consul, or a proper authority in a foreign country, think fit to have a cargo liable to deterioration discharged for its own benefit, the expenses of discharging and loading will be at the expense of the shippers.
B. Bk. II., 85, 86, 89, 94, F. 277, 278, 296, G. 636,640, H. 478, I. 570, P. 556, R. 1,022, Sw. 114. E. 115. News. 75, 78, M. and P. 154, 368, Macl. 399.
684. If a shipper, when notice of the circumstances referred to in the preceding article has occurred, seeks to discharge his goods before their arrival at their port of destination, he will pay the full freight, the expenses of putting into port at his request, and the damages and losses, if any, occasioned to other shippers.
B. Bk. II., 89, F. 293, G. 583, I. 567, N. 49, P. 554. E. 112.
685. In a general ship, any one of the shippers may unload his goods before the voyage is commenced, and pay