Page images
PDF
EPUB

and refrained from further comment, Chitty, J., refused to hold that every person was bound to notice that a writ had been issued, and considering the contempt, if any, merely technical and not substantial, dismissed the motion with costs.*

Where, however, the matter ought to have been known, the ostensible publisher will not escape on the plea of ignorance, though he shew that his real position was that of foreman printer, and that, in point of fact, he was ignorant of the article complained of and the contents of the paper.‡

§ i. Contempts by Disinterested Persons.

The practice of making motions for committal against innocent people like the editors or proprietors of newspapers ought to be discouraged as far as possible: they lead to great waste of time and to a considerable amount of costs, and, unless the Court is satisfied that the publication is a contempt which interferes with the course of justice, the Court should not accede to the application, § that is, unless satisfied that there is not only a technical contempt, but also a substantial interference.|| Yet "nothing is more incumbent upon Courts of Justice than to prevent their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything of more pernicious consequence than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes, before the cause is finally *Metropolitan Music Hall Co. v. Lake, 1889, 58 L.J. Ch. 513; 60 L.T. 749. Baker v. Hart, 1742, 2 Atk. 488; Roach v. Garvan, 1742, 2 Atk. 469, 2 Dick. 794.

In re the American Exchange in Europe. The American Exchange in Europe v. Gillig, 1889, 58 L.J. Ch. 706; 61 L.T. 502. Stirling, J. (New York Herald-publication purporting to be account of examination under s. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862).

§ Plating Co. v. Farquharson, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 49, 55, þer Jessel, M.R.

|| Hunt v Clarke (Star), 1889, 58 L.J. Q.B. 490; 61 L.T. 343; 37 W.R. 724 C.A.

heard," and such a proceeding ought to be discountenanced. The rules which have been laid down, in cases of libel, as to fair comment on matters of public notoriety do not extend to comment on matters still pending. If the article complained of has been inspired by, and leans to, one side, the contempt is the grosser. The bias may appear from the article itself.1

(a.) Simple Comment.

It is a contempt to print and publish an article containing an insinuation against the veracity of the defendants in an action, and imputing bad motives to them, and the printers were committed though they had no interest in the matter beyond the desire to earn a livelihood.§

The editor of a journal written for a particular class, knowing that an action is pending, should not permit a discussion in his columns interesting to his readers but involving comment on the action, yet if his object is that the question may be discussed and not to prejudice the action, and he has acted fairly and properly towards both sides, he will not be committed, and in such cases the motion has been refused. Otherwise, where the publication states that the deponents on one side have been guilty

Roach v. Garvan (Case of the Champion, Case of the St. James's Evening Post), 1742, 2 Atk. 469, 2 Dick. 794, per Lord Hardwicke, L.C.; Robson v. Dodds, u.s.; Ex parte Green. In re Robbins, u.s.

+ Ib.; Tichborne v. Mostyn.

Page-Wood, V.C.

Tichborne v. Tichborne, 1867, L.R. 7 Eq. 55 n.

In re Crown Bank, Ld. In re O'Malley (Star), 1890, 44 Ch. D. 649.

§ Roach v. Garvan, ubi supra — (initial and terminal letters of proper names with asterisks in place of middle letters and such like typographical devices declared ineffective).

|| Daw v. Eley, 1868, L.R. 7 Eq. 49, Romilly, M.R. (Volunteer Service Gazette-patent action relating to cartridges-discussion by correspondence as to novelty of the invention-motion refused without costs); Mordey v. Knight, 1890, Times, 16 Ap., 1890, D. (trade journal, Bristol,-discussion on matter of trade interest-notice of pending action-motion refused with costs).

of perjury, and that the proceedings are vexatious and unprincipled, though the editor conceived "that he was advancing and promoting the cause of justice.

So it is not legitimate for a local newspaper to cast reflections upon the character of a solicitor to a cause, although the matters stated are interesting to the local public, or to ridicule and abuse persons residing in a district who have given evidence on the side opposed to the interest of the locality, or to impute motives to the petitioner in an election petition, with regard to a motion for the inspection of rejected ballot papers.§

Similarly, as regards matters of interest to the country at large, the Court has to protect and vindicate its own jurisdiction, and, if there is a substantial interference with the course of justice, it is no sufficient excuse that the articles complained of were printed solely for political reasons, and that the party complaining had himself made frequent public allusion to the matters in question in the action.

*Littler v. Thomson, 1839, 2 Beav. 129. Langdale, M.R. (Gardener's Gazette-action concerning rights of tenant in nursery ground).

+ Robson v. Dodds (No. 1), 1869, 20 L.T.941; 17 W.R. 782, Malins, V.C. (North of England Advertiser-local benefit society-publisher committed, but order to lie in office for three days to give opportunity for publication of apology).

‡ Felkin v. Herbert, 1864, 33 L.J. Ch. 294; 12 W.R. 332, Kindersley, V.C. (Sheerness Guardian and East Kent Advertiser-action by Sheerness Local Board-article founded on report of meeting of Board-proprietor and publisher committed).

§ Re Tyrone Election Petition, Macartney v. Corry (Carson's Case), 1873, Ir. R. 7 C.L. 242 (Tyrone Constitution).

|| Peters v. Bradlaugh, 1888, 4 T.L.R. 414 D. (St. Stephen's Review-action for libel against M.P.—articles imputing to defendant delay to avoid the issue -editor apologising fined £20 and costs as between solicitor and client). See also Reg. v. Parnell (No. 1), 1880, 14 Cox, C.C. 474 (Dublin Evening Mail); O'Shea v. O'Shea & Parnell. In re Tuohy, 1890, Times 19th February, 1890, S.C. 59 L.J. P. 47, Butt, J. (Freeman's Journal-person neither editor, printer, nor publisher, but the manager at the London office of the paper, fined £100 and costs as between solicitor and client).

It is a contempt to make an untrue statement that a person has abandoned an action, and in such a manner as to lead to the inference that he dared not proceed with it.*

Where the action was only technically pending before him, and the article made no particular comment one way or the other, but drew attention to the plaintiff's case in a manner calculated to prejudice the case, and the newspaper inserted an apology, Stuart, V.C., made an order for payment of costs only.t

Prisoner was in the calendar for trial at Taunton assizes for the murder of M. B. at Bath. During the assizes an "artist" was exhibiting in the Town Hall at Taunton models of M. B. as she was found dead, and of the prisoner. Littledale, J., after consultation with Gaselee, J., refused to commit the "artist," the exhibition, however reprehensible, not appearing to the Court to be a contempt.‡

(b.) Publication of Pleadings, or other Papers, with or without

comment.

The papers in any proceeding are necessarily ex parte, and since, therefore, their publication may tend to prejudice the cause, it is not permissible, and is a contempt to publish any papers before the proceedings have come on

*Jackson v. Brighton Aquarium Co., W.N., 1872, p. 33, Malins, V.C. (Stock Exchange Review). If this statement were true there would be no contempt as there would be no proceeding pending.

+ Tichborne v. Tichborne, 1870, 39 L.J. Ch. 398 (Echo-Tichborne claimarticle upon impostures or "double lives" appended to a notice of the case).

Rex v. Gilham, 1828, 1 Mo. & Ma. 165. But there would seem to have been a direct tendency to prejudice. The case is very shortly reported. Slight circumstances might make a great difference, and the case should be considered in the light of the general principles stated in the Introduction and the cases there cited. See further generally as to this section, In re M'Aleece, 1873, Ir. R. 7 C.L. 146 Q.B.

to be heard. It is immaterial to the question of contempt or no contempt that the intention in the publisher's mind was not to prejudice, but merely to convey a piece of news in the ordinary way of business; for he is held to intend the consequence of his act, which tends to prejudice. But if the publication, though not to be approved of, is not a substantial interference, no application should be made for committal, even when the publication is accompanied with some kind of comment, while, on the other hand, it is the bounden duty of the Court to protect suitors against the facile courage of anonymity, and the publisher of papers in the cause with unfair comment directly tending to prejudice would be rightly committed.* It is no excuse that the document published would come in the ordinary course to the knowledge of a number of persons not strangers to the action.*

So it is a contempt to print and publish a brief, pending the trial, or to publish (with the single exception of one paragraph stating the number of shares held by the petitioner), a winding-up petition, or for a local paper to print, as an electioneering expedient, the bill and depositions taken in a suit against a candidate for the representation of a borough in Parliament.§

Publication of article slightly expanding entry in cause list of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, stating that

* In re Cheltenham and Swansea Ry. Carriage and Wagon Co., 1869, L.R. 8 Eq. 580, Malins, V.C.; Tichborne v. Mostyn; Tichborne v. Tichborne, 1867, L.R. 7 Eq. 55 n., Page-Wood, V.C.; Hunt v. Clarke, In re O'Malley, 1889, 58 L.J. Q.B. 490; 5 T.L.R. 650, C.A.

+ Roach v. Garvan, 1742, 2 Atk. 469, per Lord Hardwicke, L.C.

In re Cheltenham, etc., Co., ubi supra (Bristol Daily Times and Mirror— submission by counsel-not a case for a committal).

§ General Exchange Bank v. Horner, W.N., 1868, p. 259, Romilly, M.R. (Sheffield Independent-comment-per Curiam, if electioneering expedient object must be to shew candidate in the wrong-order that printers and publishers publish apology as mentioned in order, or stand committed).

« PreviousContinue »