ROBERTS v. BROWN. 1834. April 30. under a com the Plaintiff that the Plain supported by that of any other person, failed to THE first count of the declaration stated, that before Libel. The the time of committing the grievance next therein- Defendant published an after mentioned, a certain commission was issued, in the account of the nature of a writ de lunatico inquirendo, to enquire, among proceedings other things, whether one Job Weaver, of Kernioge, in mission of county of Denbigh, innkeeper, was a lunatic, &c. And lunacy, which by virtue of that commission, afterwards, and before the had attended committing of the grievance thereinafter mentioned, an as a witness, inquisition was held and taken at, &c. before the com- and stated missioners named for the purpose, and upon that in- tiff's tes quisition the Plaintiff, a surgeon, was examined upon timony, oath before the said commissioners, and then and "being unthere gave evidence touching the state of mind of the said Job Weaver, as well on other days and times as on the 22d day of September 1832, to wit, at, &c. the Defendant, well knowing the premises, but triving and maliciously intending to injure the Plaintiff in his good name, fame, and character, and to bring was to set him into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, and to aside a will." cause it to be suspected and believed that he was guilty Jervis comof perjury, and to subject him to the pains and penal- mented with ties of the law in respect thereof, and to vex, harass, severity on oppress, and ruin him the Plaintiff, afterwards, to wit, the testimony on, &c. at, &c. wrongfully, maliciously, and injuriously of Mr. O." (the Plaintiff.) composed, wrote, and published, and caused to be composed, written, and published a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel of and concerning the Plaintiff, and of and concerning the evidence so as aforesaid given by the Plaintiff touching the state of mind of the plea justifying con Yet have any "Mr. cutting Held, that the whole taken together was a libel; and that a only the words "Mr. Jervis commented with cutting severity on the testimony of Mr. O." was ill. 1834. ROBERTS V. BROWN. said Job Weaver upon the inquisition aforesaid; which said false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel was as follows; that is to say, "Commission of lunacy.— The Lord Chancellor having issued a commission to enquire into the sanity of Mr. Job Weaver, the respectable occupier of Kernioge Inn, in the county of Denbigh, the proceedings commenced at that place on Monday, the 12th instant, and a verdict was returned on Friday evening, that the said Job Weaver is of unsound mind, and unable to conduct his own affairs since the 4th of May 1833. It was attempted to be proved by the testimony of Mr. Owen Owen Roberts, that on the 22d of September last Mr. Weaver had visited Carnarvon, and was consulting him about a hurt on his leg; that whilst examining it, Mr. Weaver, in a hurried manner, said, 'Oh, never mind, this is a trifling matter; I have more important concerns to attend to, for I have a compact with the Almighty that I should attend to the conversion of the Jews in this world, while He attends to my interests in the world to come.' On this evidence it was meant to be inferred that Mr. Weaver was insane at that time and on that day, but Mr. O. O. Roberts' testimony being unsupported by that of any other person, it failed to have any effect on the jury, Mr. Weaver's religious opinions being enthusiastic, not fanatical. The object of fixing on the 22d of September, was to set aside a will supposed to be made on that day, and prejudicial to the interests of some of his family, while the fact of his will, a most equitable one, being made in January 1832, was proved; which will, devising the interest of money in the funds after his death to his wife for her life, and appointing his daughters Mrs. William Denman, of the Goat Hotel, Carnarvon, and Mrs. John Jones his residuary legatees, has been fully established ;" (thereby insinuating and intending to have it believed that the said Plaintiff had knowingly and wilfully given false false testimony as to what was stated to have occurred on the said 22d of September, with a corrupt purpose of setting aside a supposed will of the said Job Weaver). "The sum of money in the funds is small, the other property considerable. The jury was composed of gentlemen from Ruthin and its neighbourhood, from whence Mr. Weaver comes. The testimony of five most respectable medical gentlemen went to prove Mr. Weaver capable of managing his pecuniary affairs. The jury found otherwise. We do not quarrel with or question their verdict, more especially as it secures the reversion of Mr. Weaver's property to those who have the most undoubted claim to it. Mr. Jervis made a splendid speech of two hours' duration in favour of Mr. Weaver's sanity, and commented with cutting severity on the testimony of Mr. Owen Owen Roberts. The person at present conducting the business of the house at Kernioge, will have to account for all monies received from the 4th of May; and the management of Mr. Weaver's. affairs will be given to persons appointed by the Court of Chancery." The Defendant, in his third plea, as to the composing, writing, publishing, and causing to be composed, written, and published, so much of the said supposed libellous matter in the first count mentioned as was contained and conveyed in the following part of the said supposed libel, in that count mentioned, to wit," Mr. Jervis made a splendid speech of two hours' duration in favour of Mr. Weaver's sanity, and commented with cutting severity on the testimony of Mr. Owen Owen Roberts," pleaded actio non, &c., because before and at the said time when, &c., to wit, upon the holding and taking of the inquisition in the first count mentioned, the said Mr. Jervis, in the said supposed libel in the first count mentioned, was retained as counsel; and the said Mr. Jervis did then 1834. ROBERTS V. BROWN. and 1834. ROBERTS V. BROWN. and there, upon the holding and taking of the said inquisition, after the examination of the Plaintiff in that count mentioned, and before the said time when, &c., speak, as counsel as aforesaid, at great length, in favour of the sanity of the said Job Weaver, and did, in the course of such his speech, before the said time when, &c. comment with cutting severity upon the said evidence of the Plaintiff; wherefore the Defendant, at the said time when, &c. did compose, write, publish, and caused to be composed, written, and published so much of the said supposed libellous matter in the first count mentioned as was contained or conveyed in the said part of the said supposed libel in the introductory part of that plea mentioned and set forth, as he lawfully might; and that, the Defendant was ready to verify, wherefore he prayed judgment, &c. Demurrer and joinder. Wilde Serjt., in support of the demurrer. The plea is illusory. The passage selected for justification derives its sting from its connection with the observations that precede it; and, if not libellous in itself, is highly so in connection with that portion of the libel which the Defendant omits to justify. The whole taken together, conveys an imputation that the Plaintiff was perjured; and the Defendant cannot be permitted to divest the passage of its effect by separating it from the rest. The Defendant may be allowed to report bonâ fide what passes upon a judicial investigation, but not to give his own impression of the result, or so to frame his report as to convey an imputation of crime. Stile v. Nokes(a), Lewis v. Walter (b), Flint v. Pike(c), Saunders v. Mills(d). (a) 7 East, 492. (c) 4 B. & G. 473. Atcherley Atcherley Serjt., contrà. The alleged libel does not give the result of the proceedings under the commission of lunacy, but merely states, as a fact, that the counsel spoke with cutting severity. The alleged libel is not, as in Rex v. Creevy (a), and Rex v. Lord Abingdon (b), a publication of observations made by the Defendant himself, but a bona fide narrative of what passed upon the enquiry under the commission. It has been held beneficial to the public to be made acquainted with what passes in courts of law; Rex v. Fisher (c), Rex v. Lee (d); and it will be difficult to convey such intelligence, if it be unlawful to describe as a matter of fact the mode in which the testimony of a witness is given, or the speech of an advocate delivered. TINDAL C. J. I am of opinion that this plea cannot be supported in law. The libel complained of purports to be contained in an account of the proceedings under a commission of lunacy, on which the Plaintiff was summoned and examined as a witness. This account does not profess to state the proceedings at length, but the result of the testimony, and the opinion of the writer of the account. In order to justify a part of the account, the Defendant singles out the following passage: "Mr. Jervis made a splendid speech of two hours' duration, and commented with cutting severity on the testimony of Mr. Owen Owen Roberts;" and alleges that this is true. The objection to this allegation of the truth of the passage is, that by separating it from the rest of the libel, the Defendant raises an ambiguity, and endeavours to put on the passage a meaning different from that which it bears in connection with the rest of the libel. He endeavours to convey an impres 1834. ROBERTS บ. BROWN. |