pearance again (meaning the appearance of the said plaintiff) on Tuesday next." Then followed eleven other counts on the same libel, not materially differing from the first. Thirteenth count, that before the respective printing and publishing the respective scandalous, malicious, and defamatory *560] *libels in this thirteenth count mentioned, to wit, on the 8th of July, 1823, to wit, at, &c., the plaintiff was taken and brought before the said Thomas Hall's, Esq., being then and there one of the justices of our lord the present king for Westminster, and Middlesex, to answer a charge, complaint, and accusation against the plaintiff, for having assulted one Ann Chandler, and behaved in an indecent manner towards her; and the plaintiff being so taken and brought before the said justice, and before the respective printing and publishing the respective scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libels in this thirteenth count mentioned, the said charge, complaint, and accusation was, to wit, on the 8th of July, in the year aforesaid, to wit, at, &c., proceeded upon and in part heard and examined into before the said justice, and certain witnesses were heard and examined touching and concerning the said charge, and the further inquiry and examination concerning the said charge was adjourned by the said justice to a future day. And whereas heretofore, to wit, on the said 15th of July, in the year aforesaid, to wit, at, &c., the said charge was further proceeded upon before the said Thomas Halls the said justice; [The inducement then proceeded as in the first count from the to the in p. 558.] to wit, on the 16th of July, 1823, at, &c., unlawfully, wrongfully, and maliciously, and injuriously, did print and publish in a newspaper called the Morning Herald, a certain other scandalous, malicious, and defamatory lible of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said charge, and of and concerning the said proceedings thereupon, containing therein divers scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matters and things of

and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said charge, *561] and of and concerning the said proceedings thereupon, according to the tenor and effect following: that is to say, "Andrew Duncan the attorney, (meaning the said plaintiff,) who was charged a week ago with attempting to violate the person of a girl of thirteen named Ann Chandler, (meaning the said Ann Chandler,) was again examined, but no further evidence was heard, and he (meaning the said plaintiff') was ordered to enter into recognizances to the amount of 2001. for his appearance at the sessions, and all the witnesses were bound over to prosecute." There then followed eleven other counts founded on this libel of the 16th of July. The inducement at the commencement of this declaration applied to the first twenty-four counts. There then followed twelve counts, of which some were founded on the first libel, and others on the second, to which the inducement did not apply.

Plea first, general issue. Second plea, as to publishing the several libels in the declaration mentioned, that before any of the said several times when, &c., to wit, on the 8th of July, 1823, at the public police office at Bow Street, in the county of Middlesex, before the said Thomas Halls, so being such justice as aforesaid, the plaintiff did undergo a long examination on a charge of having indecently assaulted a female child of only thirteen years old, to wit, one Ann Chandler, and attempting to violate the person of the said Ann Chandler, and the evidence of the child herself, and her companion the plaintiff's own cousin of the same age, did upon that occasion then and there display a complication of disgusting indecencies, although the plaintiff then and there denied the principal facts alleged, and the children made some slight variation in their evidence, and eventually *the plaintiff was on that *562] occasion then and there admitted to bail himself in 1007. and two sureties in 501. each, for the appearance of him, the said plaintiff, again on Tuesday then next following. And that afterwards, to wit, on Tuesday the 15th of July, in the year aforesaid, at the said public office in Bow Street aforesaid, the plaintiff was again examined before the said Thomas Halls, so being VOL. X.-33

Y 2

such justice as aforesaid, touching the said charge; but no further evidence was heard, and he, the said plaintiff, was then and there ordered by the said justice to enter into recognizances to the amount of 2007. for his appearance at the sessions, and all the witnesses were bound over to prosecute. And that the said several supposed libels in the said declaration mentioned, contained and contain no other than a true, fair, and just report and account of the proceedings which took place on the said 8th, and 15th of July, respectively, at the said public police office, Bow Street, aforesaid, on the respective occasions aforesaid, and were printed and published by the defendants in the said newspaper called the Morning Herald, with no scandalous, malicious, or defamatory, unworthy, or unlawful motive whatever; and that the said proceedings therein reported as aforesaid, took place as aforesaid, publicly and openly at the said police office, and the said reports or accounts thereof composing the said supposed libels, were so printed and published as aforesaid, in the said newspaper as public news of such public proceedings, and with no other intent, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever, to wit, at, &c.

Third plea, that the several matters and things, in the said several supposed libels contained, were and are true.

Fourth plea, that the said supposed libels respectively *were, and [*563 consisted of nothing more than fair, true, and correct reports in the said newspaper called the Morning Herald, of proceedings which took place publicly and openly before the said Thomas Halls, so being such justice as aforesaid, at the public police office at Bow Street aforesaid: and this, &c.

Fifth plea, as to printing and publishing, and causing to be printed and published, the several supposed libels in the said declaration mentioned, which contain all or any part of the following words or matter: (that is to say,)" One Mr. Andrew Duncan, of New Inn, underwent a long examination on a charge of having indecently assaulted a female child of only thirteen years old, the evidence of the child herself, and her companion, Mr. Duncan's own cousin, of the same age, displayed such a complication of disgusting indecencies that we cannot detail it. It is right, however, that we should say the accused denied the principal facts alleged; and that the children made some slight variation in their evidence. Eventually, the accused was admitted to bail himself in 1007. and two sureties in 50%. each for his appearance again on Tuesday next;" the said defendants say, that the said last mentioned several supposed libels were, and are several copies only of one and the same supposed libel printed and published by the said defendants in several copies of the said public newspaper called the Morning Herald, of Thursday, the 10th of July, 1823, aforesaid; and that, before that time, to wit, on the said 8th of July, in that year, the said plaintiff had been, and was in due course of law, taken and brought to the public police office in Bow Street, in the county of Middlesex, before Thomas Halls, Esq., one of the Justices for Westminster and Middlesex, to answer a certain charge or complaint *made by one Ann Chandler, the younger, against him the [*564 said plaintiff, for having indecently assaulted her the said Ann Chundler; she, the said Ann Chandler, then and there being a female child of only thirteen years old, and the said plaintiff did then and there undergo a long examination on that charge, and on that occasion then and there publicly in the presence of the said plaintiff before the said justice, Ann Chandler, the elder, the mother of the said Ann Chandler, did make oath and depose as follows that is to say, (This plea then set out verbatim the depositions taken before the magistrate, by one of which made by a surgeon, it appeared that Ann Chandler, had several times answered in the negative to certain questions put by him, to which she answered in the affirmative before the magistrate.) And that the plaintiff then and there, on the occasion aforesaid,

denied the principal facts alleged against him as aforesaid, and was eventually admitted to bail, himself in 100l. and two sureties in 50l. each, for his appearance again on Tuesday then next before the said justice, to answer the said charge or complaint, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish, &c., aforesaid. Wherefore, the said defendants printed and published, and caused to be printed and published, the said supposed libels in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, in copies of the said public newspaper called the Morning Herald of the said 10th of July, as and for, and the same being a true, fair, just, and correct report and account of the said proceedings which so took place on the said 8th of July, in the year aforesaid, at the said police office on the occasion aforesaid, and the said report or account thereof, composing the said last mentioned supposed libels, was so printed and published as aforesaid, in the said copies of the said newspaper, as public news of the said last *mentioned proceedings, and with no other intent, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever, to wit, at, &c.

*565] Sixth plea, as to the printing and publishing, and causing to be printed and published, the said several supposed libels in the said declaration mentioned, which contain all or any part of the following matter: that is to say, “Andrew Duncan the attorney, who was charged a week ago with attempting to violate the person of a girl of thirteen, named Ann Chandler, was again examined, but no further evidence was heard, and he was ordered to enter into recognizances to the amount of 2007. for his appearance at the sessions, and all the witnesses were bound over to prosecute." The said defendants by like leave, &c., here say, that the said last mentioned several supposed libels were, and are copies only of one and the same supposed libel, printed and published by the said defendants in several copies of the said public newspaper, called the Morning Herald, of Tuesday the 16th of July, 1823, aforesaid; and that after the said proceedings at the said public police office in the last preceding plea mentioned, had taken place as in that plea is mentioned, and which did actually take place as is therein stated and set forth; and before the said 16th of July, 1823, to wit, on the 15th of July, in that year, the said Andrew was publicly examined at the said police office before the said justice, respecting the said charge or complaint in the said last plea mentioned, but no further evidence was on that occasion heard respecting the said charge or complaint; and he, the said Andrew, was then and there ordered by the said justice to enter into recognizances to the amount of 2007., for his appearance at the sessions of the peace to be holden in and for the said county of Middlesex, to answer the said charge or complaint. *566] And all the witnesses so examined as in the said last plea mentioned, were bound over to prosecute for the same at such sessions, to wit, at, &c. Wherefore, the said defendants printed and published, and caused to be printed and published, the said supposed libels in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, in copies of the said public newspaper called the Morning Herald, of the said 16th of July, as and for, and the same being a true, fair, just, and correct report and account of the said proceedings, which so took place on the said 15th of July, at the said police office on the occasion last aforesaid; and the said report or account thereof, composing the said last mentioned supposed libels, was so printed and published in the said newspaper as public news of the said last mentioned proceedings, and with no other intent, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever, to wit, at, &c. The seventh plea was pleaded to a part only of the supposed libel of the 10th of July, in all other respects it resembled the fifth plea. The eighth plea varied in like manner from the sixth. To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and assigned several special causes, most of which are noticed in the argument.

Patteson, in support of the demurrer. The second plea is clearly bad, inasmuch as the libel does not profess to be an account of every thing which

took place at Bow Street. It only gives a summary, or what the writer con sidered the result, of what took place. That being so, unless the publication can be assisted by the plea which sets out what actually did take place, the plea is bad, Lewis v. Walter, 4 B. & A. 605. In that case the libel purported

to be a *speech of counsel at the trial of the plaintiff on a criminal [*567 charge; and it stated, after setting out the speech, that a witness was called who proved all that had been stated by counsel, and that the defendant was immediately after that acquitted upon a defect in proving some matter of form. The plea stated that in fact such a speech was made, and that the witness called, proved all that had been so stated: but it did not set out the evidence, or justify the truth of the charges made in the counsel's speech: and the court held that the plea was insufficient. The principle of that deci sion applies here; and the second plea is not aided by that which sets out the depositions. This publication in a newspaper was circulated throughout the country, but the plea put upon the record where an action is brought against a party cannot be so circulated; and it would be of no effect in taking away the sting of the libel unless published in the same newspaper. Then, if that be so, none of the pleas can cure the original defect in the libel, in not having stated the evidence.

The third plea states that the matters contained in the libel are true. Now, if the import of that plea be that the libel contains a correct statement of what took place at Bow Street, it is open to the same objection as the second plea. If, on the other hand, the import be that the plaintiff is guilty of the charge brought against him, it is a bad plea, because it ought to have been more particular, and the facts ought to have been enumerated, and time and place ought to have been alleged, J'Anson v. Stuart, 1 T. R. 748, Homes v. Catesby, 1 Taunt. 543, Jones v. Stevens, 11 Price, 235. This plea is also bad, because it is uncertain whether it means that the report was true, or that the charge was true.

[*568

The same objection applies to the fourth plea as to the second. There is another objection also which applies to these three pleas, namely, that the matters alleged amount to the general issue; for, assuming the libels to be a correct account of what took place at Bow Street, the pleas do not justify the main charge, but go only to the motive, which is a mere negation of malice, and that might be proved on the general issue only; and the effect of pleading that in bar would be to withdraw the question of malice from the consideration of the jury, Lewis v. Walter, 4 B. & A. 605.

The fifth plea, which is confined to the first libel, states all the depositions. One objection to that plea, which applies also to the seventh, is, that it appears upon the face of the plea that the libel does not contain a true account of all that took place, because it does not contain the evidence of the surgeon, which is very material to show the innocence of the plaintiff. Supposing, however, that the statement of the evidence in the plea can supply the defect in the publication, and that that does contain a true summary of what took place at Bow Street, then the question will be raised, whether a party is to be allowed to publish an account of ex parte proceedings at a police office, containing scandalous and defamatory matters against any individual. It has been expressly held, that it is an offence to publish ex parte proceedings at a police office. That was ruled by Heath, J., in Rex v. Lee, 5 Esp. 123, and in Rex v. Fisher, 2 Camp. 563, by Lord *Ellenborough, on the [*569 ground that such publications have a tendency to pervert the public mind, and to disturb the course of justice, by preventing a fair trial. In Rex v. Fleet, 1 B. & A. 379, this court granted a criminal information against a party for publishing in a newspaper, a statement of the evidence given before a coroner's jury, and the opinions of Lord Chief Justice Abbott, and Mr. Justice Bayley, seem to be founded chiefly upon the ground that such a publication had a tendency to prevent a fair trial; and in Rex v. Clement, 4 B. &

A. 218, this court supported a fine imposed upon the editor of a newspaper for publishing proceedings while the parties were still on their trials. All these cases were certainly cases of indictment or information, but no distinction can be taken in this respect between an indictment and an action. The indictment proceeds on the ground that the publication has a tendency to prejudice the public administration of justice, by preventing a fair trial, and that it is, therefore, unlawful. Now, if a party sustain a special injury thereby, he ought to be allowed to maintain an action. There is, indeed, this distinction between an indictment and an action for a libel, that truth is no justification in the former case, but it is in the latter. The reason of that, however, is, that an indictment lies because the act committed has a tendency to promote a breach of the peace; and therefore, truth, as it may produce that effect, is no justification. That distinction might apply to these cases if the publication of ex parte proceedings tended to a breach of the peace, but the reason assigned why an indictment lies in such cases is, that the tendency of the publication is to prevent a fair trial. Now, that is injurious to the party whether he be innocent or guilty. Besides, here the proceed*570] ing did not take place before a tribunal to which the public could claim admittance as of right, Cox v. Coleridge, 1 B. & C. 37. In that respect these proceedings differ materially from those in a court of justice, which is open to all the world. Then if a party is present at such examination by the permission of the magistrate, he can have no more right to publish any matter which passes there, and which is injurious to an individual, than if it took place in any private room. Besides, it appears from what fell from Lord Kenyon, in Rex v. Creevey, 1 M. & S. 273, that even the proceedings of a court of justice cannot be published under all circumstances. Rex v. Mary Carlisle, 3 B. & A. 167, shows that a party is not at liberty to publish any matter which is scandalous and injurious to another, merely because it passes in a court of justice; and so, a fortiori, he cannot publish matter which has passed in a police office, which is not an open court of justice, and where the proceedings are ex parte. The publication of them has a necessary tendency to prevent a fair trial in the ulterior stage of the investigation. Rex v. Wright, 8 T. R. 293, will probably be cited on the other side, but that was a publication of a report made by the House of Commons; and in Rex v. Creevey, 1 M. &. S. 273, it was held that a speech made in that house cannot lawfully be published if it contains libellous matter. Then as to the policy of such publications. There is indeed one contingent advantage which may arise from them, but that is counterbalanced by numerous inconveniences. *571] The possible advantage is, that by accident the publication may catch the attention of persons who otherwise might never hear of such a proceeding, and who might come forward as witnesses for or against the party zecused; and might, therefore, have a tendency to assist the administration of public justice.

On the other hand, if reports of this description are to be published, it will, under all circumstances, be at the expense of harrassing the feelings of every person who is unfortunately taken up upon any charge. When once such a charge is published, it is extremely difficult to take off the effect of it by any counter statement, and it may possibly meet the eye of thousands who may never hear that the party accused was ultimately proved innocent or guilty. The inconveniences, therefore, infinitely outweigh any good that may arise from such publications.

E. Lawes, contra. The question is, whether to publish a true account of the substance of what passed before a magistrate at a police office, respecting a prisoner there present, and charged with an attempt to commit a rape, published in a newspaper as public news without comment of any sort, or any malicious or defamatory motive, be justifiable; and if so, whether the particulars of the defendant's examination, as well as all the indecencies mentioned