Page images
PDF
EPUB

[(3.) 1A, a military witness before a military court of inquiry as to the conduct of B, makes in reference to the subject of that inquiry certain written statements affecting B, which are false to A's knowledge, and are intended to injure B. This is not a libel.

2

(4.) A being the military superior of D, and being as such under a military duty to make a report on B's conduct to C, their common superior, makes a report which he knows to be false in order to injure B. The report is not a libel.

4

3 ARTICLE 351.

FAIR REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURTS.

The publication of a fair report of the proceedings of a court of justice is not a libel merely because it defames the character of any private person; but such a publication may be an offence under Articles 121, 128, 207, or 218.

A report is said to be fair when it is substantially accurate, and when it is either complete or condensed in such a manner as to give a just impression of what took place, but this Article does not extend to comments made by the reporter, or to reports of observations made by persons not entitled to take part in the proceedings.

Reports of ex parte proceedings are within this Article if they are of a judicial nature, and proceedings before a magistrate under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42] R. S. C. c. 174, ss. 30-50, 57-91, [held with open doors, and with a view to the committal for trial of a suspected person, are judicial. 5 Provided in all the cases aforesaid that the publisher is not actuated in making the publication by an indirect motive.

6

Illustrations.

(1.) A publishes in a newspaper a fair report of the examination of a

1 [Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, L. R. 7 H. L. 744.

2'Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L. R. 5 Q. B. 94. Dissientiente Cockburn, C.J. I should doubt whether this law would be extended beyond the case of military duty.]

3 S. D. Art. 277.

4 [Curry v. Walter, 1 B. & P. 525; Hoare v. Silverlock, 9 C. B. 20; Lewis v. Levy, E. B. & E. 553. Usill v. Hales, L. R. 3 C. P.D. 319.

5 Stevens v. Sampson, L. R. 5 Ex. Div. 53. Ryalls v. Leader, L. R. 1 Ex. 296, 300. ]

T

[debtor before the registrar of a Bankruptcy Court. The examination contains irrelevant statements defaming B, who is a stranger to the proceedings. This is not a libel on B.

(2.) A having been convicted of publishing a blasphemous libel, B publishes the trial, the blasphemous matter being given in full. B publishes a blasphemous libel.

(3.) 2 A publishes a report of proceedings for perjury against B, and omits certain parts of the cross-examination of the witnesses. This raises a question for the jury whether the effect of the omission is to make the report partial and inaccurate.

(4.) A, in the last illustration, begins his report with an account of the proceedings out of which the charge of perjury against B arose, and observes, "Evidence was given by C and D which entirely negatived B's story." This statement is not within the Article.

4

(5.) A publishes in a newspaper an account of proceedings before a magistrate against B. The report contains a statement by the magistrate's clerk that B's alleged conduct was excedingly improper under any circumstances. This observation is not within this Article.

(6.) 5 A publishes a fair report in a newspaper of a proceeding against B for perjury at a police court, which proceeding ended in the dismissal of the charge against B. This publication is not a libel.

(7.) 6 A publishes in a newspaper a fair report of statements of a defamatory kind, made before a magistrate extra-judicially, with a view to asking his advice. This publication may be a libel, as there is no judicial proceeding.]

7 ARTICLE 352.

PUNISHMENT FOR LIBEL.

Every one is liable to a fine not exceeding six hundred dollars or to imprisonment for any term less than two years, or to both, who

(a.) publishes, or threatens to publish, any libel upon. any other person; or

(b.) directly or indirectly threatens to print or publish, or proposes to abstain from, or offers to prevent the

1 [R. v. Carlile, 3 B. & Ald. 167.

2 Lewis v. Levy, E. B. & E. 551.

3 Lewis v. Levy, E. B. & E. 539.

* Delegal v. Highley, 3 Bing. N. C. 960, 961.

Lewis v. Levy, E. B. & E. 537; see, on the other hand, Duncan v. Thwaites, 3 B. & C. 556

• McGregor v. Thwaites, 3 B. & C. 24.]

7 S. D. Art. 278.

8 R. S. C. c. 163, s. 1; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 3.

printing or publishing of any matter or thing touching any other person,

with intent

(i.) to extort any money, or security for money, or any valuable thing from such or any other person; or

1

(ii.) to induce any person to confer upon or procure for any person any appointment or office of profit or trust. Every one is liable to a fine not exceeding four hundred dollars or to imprisonment for any term less than two years, or to both, who maliciously publishes any defamatory libel knowing it to be false,

2 or [if he does not know it to be false], to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or to one year's imprisonment, or to both.

1 R. S. C. c. 163, s. 2; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 4.

2 R. S. C. c. 163, s. 3; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 5. [The words bracketed are not in the Act, but are required to complete the sense.]

* PART VI.

OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS AND

OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE.

CHAP. XXXII.-PROPERTY-POSSES- | CHAP. XLI.-RECEIVING.
SION-ASPORTATION-BAILMENT.

CHAP. XXXIII.-THINGS CAPABLE
OR NOT OF BEING STOLEN.
CHAP. XXXIV.-THEFT IN GENE-

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. XLII.-FORGERY IN GENERAL.
CHAP. XLIII. PUNISHMENT OF
PARTICULAR FORGERIES-OFFEN-
CES RESEMBLING FORGERY AND
ACTS PREPARATORY TO THE COM-
MISSION OF FORGERY.

CHAP. XLIV.-FORGERY OF TRADE
MARKS-FRAUDULENT MARKING
OF MERCHANDIZE

[ocr errors]

OFFENCES

[blocks in formation]

*3 Hist. Cr. Law, ch. xxviii. 121-176.]

1 CHAPTER XXXII.

PROPERTY-POSSESSION—ASPORTATION-BAILMENT.

2 ARTICLE 353.

OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.

[THE violation of rights of property and rights arising from contracts is a crime in the cases specified in this part.

Such violation may be:

(i.) By taking away property from the owner without his consent

(a.) by violence to his person or habitation;

(b.) without such violence.

(ii.) By persuading the owner by fraud to transfer his rights of property.

(iii.) By the misappropriation of property entrusted by the owner to the offender.

(iv.) By acts calculated to defraud, whether they actually defraud or not; that is to say—

(a.) Forgery.

(b.) Personation.

(c) Coining and uttering bad money.

(v.) By wilful and malicious mischief done to property. (vi.) By breaches of certain kinds of contract and interference in certain cases with freedom of trade.

1 [This and the following chapter have I fear a somewhat abstract appearance, but it is impossible to understand the provisions of the Larceny Act without a knowledge of the doctrines which it presupposes-that is to say, the doctrine as to the definition of theft, and as to things capable of being stolen. The definition of theft turns on the doctrine of possession (see Appendix Note XI.), and this is unintelligible except in relation to the doctrine of property.]

2 S. D. Art. 279.

« EelmineJätka »