LAW JOURNAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1880. CASES RELATING TO THE POOR LAW, THE CRIMINAL LAW, CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH The Duties and Office of Magistrates, PRINCIPALLY DECIDED IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS, AND IN THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED, MICHAELMAS SITTINGS, 1879, TO TRINITY SITTINGS, 1880, BOTH INCLUSIVE. REPORTED In the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, In the Queen's Bench Division, By J. H. ETHERINGTON SMITH, ESQ., AND RICHARD HOLMDEN In the Common Pleas Division, By WILLIAM PATERSON, ESQ., AND GILBERT GEORGE KENNEDY, Esq., In the Exchequer Division, By W. DECIMUS I. FOULKES, ESQ., AND FRANCIS PARKER, Esq., BODE MAGISTRATES' CASES. VOLUME XLIX. LONDON: PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE. PUBLISHED BY EDWARD BRET INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE. MDCCCLXXX. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. CASES RELATING TO THE POOR LAW, THE CRIMINAL LAW, CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH The Duties and Office of Magistrates. LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, VOL. XLIX. MICHAELMAS, 1879, To MICHAELMAS, 1880. [IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.] 1879. Nov. 19, 20.} THE QUEEN v. SIR ROBERT Defamatory Libel-Jurisdiction of Magistrate on Criminal Charge of Libel Evidence of Truth of Libel, when admissible -6 & 7 Vict. c. 96 (Lord Campbell's Act), 88. 5 & 6-30 & 31 Vict. c. 35. s. 3. On the hearing before a magistrate of an information under section 5 of Lord Campbell's Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 96), for maliciously publishing a defamatory libel, the magistrate has no jurisdiction to receive evidence, whether on cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses or on the direct testimony of witnesses called by the accused, to prove the truth of the libellous matter charged, on the ground that the truth is not in issue before him, and cannot at that stage constitute any defence. This was an application for a mandamus to Sir Robert Carden, an alderman and magistrate of the city of London, in a case pending before him of a charge brought by Edward Levy Lawson against Henry Labouchere and Charles Wyman for publishing a defamatory libel, commanding him to hear evidence in crossexamination by the defendants of the VOL. 49.-M.C. complainant and the complainant's witnesses, and direct evidence of the defendants and their witnesses on the information of the complainant against Henry Labouchere, the defendant, for a libel referring to the said Edward Levy Lawson, to prove, first, that the alleged libel was not a false and defamatory libel; second, that it was a free and fair comment on a public man in a matter to which he had given prominence and called public attention, and which was a question of public interest; third, that the alleged libel was true in substance and in fact; fourth, that it was for the public benefit that the alleged libel should be published; and fifth, that it was not published knowing it to be false; and commanding the said magistrate further to hear all evidence relating to the same libel and to the circumstances under which the same was published, and to the conduct of the complainant in reference thereto, with a view to the exercise of the discretion of the said alderman as to whether he should or should not commit the defendants for trial; and commanding him further to hear all evidence on cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses going to the credit of the said witnesses; B |