references are to the Report of the Proceedings before the Commissioners issued separately by the publisher of The Times.

Case of The Kerry Sentinel. Harrington's Case. I. 316, 338.

Application by the Attorney-General on the part of The Times against Mr. E. Harrington, a party to the inquiry, in respect of an article in The Kerry Sentinel, of which Mr. Harrington was the proprietor. The article, appearing at a time when witnesses from Kerry were under examination, alleged, in substance, that the Commissioners were personally prejudiced in favour of The Times, that in instances specified they had acted with such personal prejudice, that the Commission was the creature of the Government and The Times, and that the Irish Party could have no confidence in it. The application was ordered to stand over to the next day to give time to Mr. Harrington's counsel to inform himself of the matter, as no notice had been given. On the following day Mr. Harrington's counsel declined to address the Commission, Mr. Harrington not having seen fit to follow his counsel's advice, and Mr. Harrington himself accepting the responsibility for the article without further speech, the Commissioners, in order that the authority of the Commission might be maintained, and, more especially, that that authority might not be shaken in the eyes of witnesses, followed the precedent of Onslow's and Whalley's Case (Reg. v. Castro, 1873, L.R. 9 Q.B. 219), and adjudged Mr. Harrington to pay a fine of £500 to the Queen. (Cf. § ii. (a.), supra.)

Case of the Radcliffe Placards. I. 469, 491, 492.

Application by Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., on behalf of parties to the inquiry against persons responsible for the

printing and publishing of certain placards inviting attendance at a meeting in the country to hear statements as to how one person was "boycotted by the agents of the National League," and a "thrilling account" by another as to how "her father was brutally murdered through the instrumentality of the National League." Sir James Hannen expressed an opinion that nothing could justify an announcement of that kind, and gave leave to serve notice to appear on the persons concerned. In accordance with this notice those persons appeared by counsel and explained on affidavit that they had acted inadvertently, that on hearing of the expression of opinion by Sir James they had forthwith taken steps to undo what had been done, and tendered an humble apology. The Commissioners said that while the inquiry was pending, it was incumbent upon all persons to abstain from calling meetings to argue in favour of one side or the other, but as the persons concerned had made such atonement as they were able no punishment would be inflicted. (Cf. § ii. (a.), supra.)

Case of United Ireland. O'Brien's Case. I. 650, 673, 696.

Application by the Attorney-General on behalf of The Times against Mr. Wm. O'Brien, the editor and proprietor of United Ireland, in respect of an article in that paper stating that the Commissioners had been specially selected for their partiality, but that the Government which selected them might have been deceived in its selection, that the inquiry was a political inquiry, that The Times was purposely making delay to heap up expense and avoid the only issue of any interest or importance, speaking throughout of The Times as The Forger, and of certain letters, the authenticity of which was the issue alluded to, as forgeries, styling one witness a tuft-hunting clergyman, and thanking God that he was the only Catholic clergyman in all Ireland

to be found in the company of The Times witnesses, imputing that The Times was procuring evidence by means of bribery and intimidation, and holding up to contempt two witnesses, mentioned by name, who had given evidence. Mr. O'Brien disclaimed any intention to shew disrespect or discourtesy to the Commissioners, but defended the article on the ground that the inquiry was not an ordinary judicial trial, but an extraordinary inquiry by an extraordinary tribunal into matters of more than ordinary public interest, and that the article was fair comment on these matters, and a necessary answer to the charges made beforehand by The Times, and daily repeated by the sale in pamphlet form of a report of the Attorney-General's opening speech. The Commissioners said that the inquiry was not a political, but a judicial inquiry, but that it was surrounded by questions of a political character external to the inquiry itself. External comment upon these external questions was permissible, but not comment upon the proceedings before the Commission. The assumption pervading the article that the letters mentioned were forgeries was perhaps a fair answer to the charges repeated by The Times, an allegation and a traverse, and not on the whole a contempt. The passages reflecting on the witnesses were the serious part of the article, and, because of their tendency to prevent witnesses coming forward, were not to be tolerated. The Commissioners did not, therefore, think that Mr. O'Brien had established any right to comment on the proceedings as he had done, but believing his expression of a desire not to say anything disrespectful, and feeling the force of his observations as to the political matters connected with the inquiry, and the difficulty of always keeping to the right side of the line as to comment upon these matters and comment upon the proceedings, they would refrain from inflicting any punishment. (Cf. § i. (a.); § ii. (d.), supra.)

Case of the Warden of Merton, I. 652, 677.

Application by Reid, Q.C., representing parties to the inquiry, against the Warden of Merton on account of a speech delivered at Oxford, in which, as was alleged, the Warden had compared two of the parties to the inquiry with an infamous criminal known as the Whitechapel murderer, the atrocities attributed to whom were then exciting public interest. The Warden, by affidavit and by his counsel, apologised and explained that his speech when read with its context was not capable of the construction sought to be put upon it, and the Commissioners accepted this apology and explanation.

Case of the Worcester Daily Times and Journal, I. 672.

Application by Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., against the printer and publisher of the above-mentioned paper in respect of an article which was partly comment upon the political questions surrounding the inquiry, but also contained statements which prejudged the issues. The consideration of the application for leave to serve notice on the proprietor was postponed till after the determination of O'Brien's Case, and the application was apparently abandoned after the decision in that case, as I have not been able to find any further mention of it.

Case of the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, I. 755, 764.

An application against this paper was abandoned on the principal proprietor causing the insertion of a paragraph that the matter complained of appeared without his authority, and expressing his regret.

Finch-Hatton's Case, II. 291.

An application to serve notice on Mr. Finch-Hatton in respect of a speech at a public meeting reflecting on a party

to the inquiry was stopped by the Commissioners asking for an affidavit to support the allegation of counsel, and is not traceable further.*

HORACE NElson.

IT

IV. DECISIONS IN THE STRAITS

SETTLEMENTS.+

is interesting to know that several of our Colonies

are now possessed of Law Reports of their own. Mr. Kyshe, of Lincoln's Inn, has compiled a set of Law Reports for the Straits Settlements, in four volumes, of which the first three were published in 1885, while the fourth, just issued, brings the decisions down to the close of 1890. These Reports, containing as they do decisions on Civil and Ecclesiastical matters, Habeas Corpus, Admiralty and Bankruptcy Cases, Criminal Rulings, and Magistrates' Appeals, give a good idea of the principles and forms of English Law as administered in the Straits Settlements.

*Ex parte Green. In re Robbins (Press Association), 1891, 7 T.L.R. 411, decided too late for insertion in the body of this Article; shews (with the larger number of the cases cited above, and more particularly with Roach v. Garvan; In re the American Exchange in Europe; Ex parte Jones; and In re Tuohy) that any person is punishable in respect of a contempt by publication whom the Court shall deem responsible, whether editor, manager, writer, publisher, actual printer, or what not; and also that a statement which may lead possible jurors at the trial to suppose that what is taking place is a sham and not a real fight, is a contempt.-H.N.

Kyshe's Reports: being a Digest of the Cases heard and determined in Her Majesty's Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, 1808-1890. Edited and reported, with a Judicial historical preface from 1786 to 1890, and the Rules and Orders of Court in force, by JAMES WILLIAM NORTON KYSHE, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Acting Registrar of the said Court and Commissioner of the Court of Requests in Malacca. Volume IV., 1885-1890. Singapore. Printed at the Singapore and Straits Printing Office. 1890.