paper a statement of the evidence bor. Upon an application by him given before a coroner's jury ac- for a criminal information for such companied with comments, although the statement is correct, and the party has no malicious motive in the publication. Rex v. Fleet, 1 B. & Á. 379. The court will grant a criminal information against the publisher of a newspaper for a libel reflecting on the clergy of a particular diocese, and generally upon the clergy of the church of England, though no individual prosecutor was named, and though the libellous matter was not negatived on affidavit: it is sufficient to state the publication of the libel by the defendant. Rex v. Williams, 1 D. & R. 197; 5 B. & A. 595. An order made by a corporation and entered in their books, stating that A. (against whom a jury had found a verdict with large damages in an action for a malicious prosecution for perjury, which verdict had been confirmed) was actuated by motives of public justice, in preferring the indictment, is such a libel reflecting on the administration of justice, for which the court will grant an information against the members making that order. Rex. v. Watson, 2 T. R. 199. So, an information will lie for publishing a reflection on a judge and jury for acquitting a prisoner. Rex v. White, 1 Camp. 359, n.Grose. article, the court declined to interfere, on the ground that there was no personal malice suggested, and that the article could now exercise no prejudicial influence. Smith, Ex parte, 21 L. T., N. S. 294-Q. B. For Slanderous Words spoken of Slanderous words spoken of and to a mayor in discharge of his office as mayor, and of him in the execution of his office, the mayor being also a magistrate in virtue of his office, are the subject of a criminal information. Reg. v. Rea, 17 Ir. C. L. R. 584-Lefroy, C. J., and Hayes, J. Such words are not the subject of an indictment, nor, consequently, of a criminal information--Per O'Brien and Fitzgerald, JJ. (b) Who entitled to. On a motion for a criminal information for a libel impugning the conduct of a jury, it appeared that the foreman had published a letter commenting in violent terms on the alleged libel, and that, before publication, he communicated a copy to the other jurymen. The letter was signed by the foreman "for self and fellows"; and it appeared to the court that the affidavits afforded ground for believing that some of the jurymen knew of the foreman's enough to have given him notice of their dissent from his doing so, which they had not done: Held, that neither were these jurymen, nor was the foreman, entitled to the criminal information. Reg. v. Lawson, 1 Q.B. 486; 1 G. & D. 15; 5 Jur. 387. The court refused to grant a criminal information against a bookseller, for printing a report of the House of Commons, though it re-intention to publish the letter early flected on the character of an individual. Rex v. Wright, 8 T. R. 293. A party having been charged before the coroner with the crime of murder, a newspaper, pending the inquiry, published an article strongly reflecting upon him as a murderer. Having been committed for trial, he was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard la If a party who has been libelled puts himself into communication with the libeller, for the purpose of retorting upon or obtaining redress from him, the court will not grant a criminal information. Beauclerk, ex parte, 7 Jur. 373-Q. B. (c) Necessary Affidavits. It is an invariable rule not to grant an information for a libel, without an exculpatory affidavit, unless where the party libelled is abroad at a great distance, or the subject-matter of the charge is general imputation, or an accusation of criminal language held in parliament. Rex v. Haswell, 1 Dougl. 387. It is a general rule that the court will not grant an information for a private libel, charging a particular offense, unless the prosecutor will deny the charge upon oath. Rex v. Miles, 1 Dougl. 284. An affidavit to found a motion for a criminal information for a libel must distinctly negative the charge, unless the party libelled is abroad, or the charge is general. Rex v. Wright, 2 Chit. 162. Although a party applying for a criminal information must shew himself to be an innocent party, yet the court made a rule absolute for such information against the publisher of a libel, which affected several parties, notwithstanding that the character of the person principally attacked, and on whose affidavit the rule nisi had been obtained, was impeached on shewing cause. Reg. v. Gregory, 1 P. & D. 110; 8 A. & E. 907. A rule nisi for a criminal information for a libel was discharged, on an affidavit made by a person who swore to the truth of the libel. This person was indicted for perjury; the bill was found and he absconded. It appeared from the affidavits of several persons that the former affidavit was entirely untrue. The court, under these circumstances granted another rule nisi for a criminal information, and made it absolute. Rex v. Eve, 1 N. & P. 229; 5 A. & E. 780; 2 H. & W. 450. (d) Proof of Publication. The rule established at nisi prius in prosecutions for libel in a newspaper, viz., that, after production of the stamp-office affidavit, a paper corresponding with it in title, printer's and publisher's name, and place of publication, may be put in and read, as published by the parties therein named, without other proof on this point, applies equally on motions for criminal informations. Rex v. Donnison, 4 B. & Ad. 698. A rule for a criminal information against the publisher of a newspaper libel must be drawn up on reading the newspaper, and the newspaper must be filed; otherwise the court will discharge such a.rule, although properly granted on production of a certified copy from the stampoffice, under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 8, of a declaration by the defendant that he is publisher of a news paper therein described, and on production of a newspaper corresponding to it, which contains the libel. Reg. v. Woolmer, 4 P. & D. 137 ; 12 A. & E. 422. If an affidavit on which a rule nisi is granted for a criminal information for a libel does not swear to a publication, the rule cannot be supported, though the affidavits of the other side admit the publication. Reg. v. Baldwin, 3 N. & P. 342; 1 W. W. & H. 158; 8 A. & E. 168; 2 Jur. 856. A statement in an affidavit that the defendant did print and insert a libel in a certain newspaper, a copy of which is annexed, is not sufficient proof of publication to make the defendant liable to a rule nisi. Ib. A motion for a criminal information for libels published in a newspaper was made upon affidavits containing the stamp-office certificate verifying the declaration of publication and printing, under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 8. The affidavits also set forth the libel, stating it to be contained in a newspaper which (as appeared by the affidavits) cor clarations of proprietorship, filed under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 8, is no longer available, as that section is repealed by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24, s. 1, per First Schedule, and consequently the decisions digested under this head are no longer law. 66 responded with the description in the stamp-office declaration. At the time of the motion, a newspaper, likewise so corresponding, was shewn to the court. The rule nisi was granted; but it was not drawn up on reading the newspaper; nor was the newspaper annexed to the affi- But by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24, Secdavit or filed-Held, not sufficient ond Schedule, section 19, of 6 & 7 at common law or under the stat- Will. 4, c. 76, which enacts, that, ute; and that the newspaper could "if any person shall file any bill in be shewn to the court on moving to any court for the discovery of the make a rule absolute. Reg. v. Wool-"name of any person concerned as mer, 12 A. & E. 422; 4 P. & D. 137." printer, publisher or proprietor of The court will discharge a rule" any newspaper, or of any matters for a criminal information for a li-"relative to the printing or publishbel against the publisher of a news-"ing of any newspaper, in order the paper, where, in the affidavits upon more effectually to bring or carry which the rule had been obtained, on any suit or action for damages and the affidavits sworn at the " alleged to have been sustained by stamp-office, the defendant was de- reason of any slanderous or libelscribed as of different places. Rex"lous matter contained in any such v. Francis, 4 N. & M. 251; 2 A. "newspaper respecting such person, & E. 49. "it shall not be lawful for the de 66 66 Where a newspaper is filed, to- fendant to plead or demur to such gether with affidavits, in support of "bill, but such defendant shall be a motion for a criminal information" compellable to make the discovery for a libel, the court will take notice" required: provided always, that of it, if it corresponds in the neces- "such discovery shall not be made sary particulars with the stamp- use of as evidence or otherwise in office affidavit, though it is not an-"any proceeding against the denexed to and expressly identified by fendant, save only in that proany affidavit. Ib. ceeding for which the discovery is " made," is kept alive and in force. A rule nisi for a criminal information having been obtained against W. for an alleged libel on E., W. filed affidavits in answer adducing fresh charges against E. Before cause was shown, C., who was defendant in an action at E.'s suit for libel, pleaded a justification, containing substantially the same matter as the fresh charges adduced by W., and also matter bringing into question the truth of the original charge. The court refused, on motion by E., to stay the hearing of argument on the rule against W. till the action of E. against C. should have been tried. Reg. v. Willmer, 15 Q. B. 50. 66 66 On an information for falsely and maliciously publishing a libel concerning the king, by stating in a newspaper that his majesty was afflicted with mental derangement, the jury found the defendant guilty of so doing:-Held, on a motion for a new trial, first, that to assert falsely of his majesty, or of any inThe mode of proving libels pub-dividual, that he labors under the lished in newspapers, by the pro- affliction of mental derangement, is duction of certified copies of de- a criminal act, and a malicious inten tion may be inferred from the mere fact of publication, unless evidence is given by the defendant to rebut such inference secondly, that such an assertion concerning the king, being in itself mischievous to the public, is an indictable offense, without any allegation or direct proof of a malicious intention: thirdly, that where the jury desired to know 66 whether, in order to convict a defendant for the publication of a libel, a malicious intention must not have existed in his mind," they were correctly answered by the judge presiding at the trial, who informed them, that "a person who publishes that which is calumnious concerning the character of another must be presumed to have intended to do that which the publication is necessarily and obviously calculated to effect, unless he can show the contrary, and that the onus of proving the contrary lies upon him:" and, fourthly, that where the publisher of a libel states that the fact which he communicated is "from authority," and it appears that the fact is untrue, he is guilty of a false assertion, in the criminal sense of the word. Rex v. Harvey, 3 D. & R. 464; 2 B. & C. 257. Information held good for publishing a libel against two persons, where the publishing was one single offense. Rex v. Benfield, 2 Burr. 983. Where several persons were charged in the same information, it was held good, the offense arising out of one joint act. Ib. When an information alleged that the defendant, intending to insinuate and cause it to be believed that diverse liege subjects of the king had been inhumanly cut down, maimed and killed, by certain troops of the king, unlawfully and maliciously published a libel of and concerning the government of this realm, and of and concerning the troops, and the only innuendo in the libel was applied to the word "dragoons," meaning the troops of the king, and meaning thereby that divers liege subjects of the king had been inhumanly cut down and killed by the said troops of the king :Held, on arrest of judgment, that this was sufficiently certain, without defining what particular troops were meant. Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. & A. 314. So, where an information alleged that a libel was published of and concerning the government, and the libel did not in express terms charge the acts to have been done by the government or its order, the whole of the libel must be looked at, in order that the court may interpret it in the way in which ordinary persons would understand it, and judge from the whole tenor of it whether it is written of and concerning the government. Ib. An introductory averment in an information, that outrages had been committed in and in the neighborhood of N., is divisible so that it need not be proved that they were committed in both places; and fourteen or fifteen miles from N. may be considered in the neighborhood. Rex v. Sutton, 4 M. & S. 532. Upon an information against a defendant for libel, for that he, wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously did write and publish a certain false, scandalous, and seditious libel "of and concerning his majesty's gov ernment and the employment of his troops, according to the tenor and effect following" (setting forth the libel verbatim): the words "of and concerning are a sufficient introduction of the matter contained in the libel, and a sufficient averment that it was written of and concerning the king's government, and the employment of his troops. Rex v. Home, Cowp. 672. (f) Justifying Publication. [6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 6.] Where a defendant in an information for a libel has pleaded the truth of the charges under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 6, evidence is not admissible in support of the plea that the same charges had been previously published within the knowledge of the prosecutor, and that he had not taken legal proceedings against the publisher. Reg. v. Newman, Dears. C. C.85; 1 El. & Bl. 268; 3 C. & K. 252; 17 Jur. 617; 22 L. J., Q. B. 156. Where a plea of justification contains several charges, and the prosecutor replies generally, denying the whole, the prosecutor is entitled to a verdict unless the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the jury the truth of all the material allegations; and if the defendant fails to prove the truth of all the matters charged, it is no ground for a new trial that, with respect to some of those upon which the jury gave a verdict against the defendant, their finding was against the weight of the evidence. Ib. But the court, in pronouncing sentence, is to consider the evidence on the one side and on the other, and to form their own conclusion whether the guilt of the defendant is aggravated or mitigated by the plea, and by the evidence given to prove or to disprove the same. Ib. Affidavits showing the grounds upon which the defendant proceeded in pleading certain allegations in a plea of justification, in support of which no evidence was given at the trial, are receivable in mitigation of punishment, but not as proving the truth of the allegations. Ib. If, in an information for a libel, the plea states that the prosecutor, who had been a Dominican, had earned the reputation of a scandalous friar, a witness for the defendant may be asked as to the prosecutor's moral character. Reg. v. Newman, 3 C. & K. 252-Campbell. The special plea of justification given by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 6, cannot be pleaded to an indictment for a seditious libel. Reg. v. Duffy, 2 Cox, C. C. 45. (g) Costs. Where in an information for a li bel judgment is given for the defendant, he is entitled to recover from the prosecutor the costs sustained by reason of such information, under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 8, although the only plea is not guilty, and the judge at the trial certified under 4 & 5 Will. & M. c. 18, s. 2, that there was reasonable cause for exhibiting the information. Reg. v. Latimer, 15 Q. B. 1077; 15 Jur. 314; 20 L. J., Q. B. 129. 4. Against Magistrates. When a justice of the peace acts from indirect or corrupt motives, the court will punish him by information. Rex v. Cozens, 2 Dougl. 426. No information will be granted against justices acting in sessions, unless in very flagrant cases. v. Seaford (Justices), 1 W. Bl. 432. Rex Wherever magistrates act uprightly, though they mistake the law, no information will be granted against them. Rex v. Jackson, 1 T. R. 653. On an application for a rule nisi for a criminal information against a magistrate, the question is not whether the act done might on full investigation be found to be strictly right, but whether it proceeded from oppressive, dishonest, or corrupt motives (under which fear and favor may generally be included), or from mistake, or error; in either of the latter instances the court will not grant the rule. Reg. v. Borron, 3 B. & Ad. 432. The court will not grant an information against a magistrate, for having improperly convicted a person, unless the party complaining makes an exculpatory affidavit, denying the facts. Rex v. Webster, 3 T. K. 388. A criminal information was refused against a magistrate for returning to a writ of certiorari a conviction of a party in another and |
