London Legal Letter.
2I7
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, April 1, 1898. books, the scale of justice had been adjusted equitably, I SAW a statement some time ago in an English newshaving due regard on the one hand to the protection of
- . paper to the effect that there was no libel law in the
the public from injurious and unjustifiable attacks, and on United States. As all truth is relative there may be some the other to the safeguarding of the freedom of the press truth in this assertion. What the writer probably meant in the interests of the community at large. But, so far as was that, as compared with the rigor and efficacy with which the latter was concerned, it was discovered that newspaper libel and slander are punished in this country, there is abso proprietors were still liable to vexatious attacks, and a case lute license and immunity from responsibility on your side came into court which revealed the existence of a new of the Atlantic. During the last ten or twelve years there danger. This arose out of a foreign telegram sent to the have been as many libel actions set down for trial in Her newspapers by a news agency, and it resulted in a series of Majesty's High Court as any other class of cases. In 1888, actions extending over two or three years, the amount one of the judges said from the bench that libel actions which had eventually to be paid in costs and damages reaching several thousands of pounds. The plaintiff, in formed the most important branch of the work carried on in the courts. Considering the still larger number of such ac cross-examination, confessed that he could not trace the tions compromised before they reached the trial stage, it may loss of a single sixpence to the publication of the alleged libel, while he further admitted that in a large number of be safely assumed that, if some check had not been put upon this kind of litigation, it would have rivalled in volume cases he had only discovered the existence of the libel by searching the files at the British Museum. Nevertheless he and annoyance the suits for damages for personal injuries made practically a fortune out of his action, and it was which crowd the calendars of the courts in the United stated in open court that the solicitor who acted for him had States. Two causes, however, have combined to make life entered into a written contract with him, out of which he a little less of a terror to the average newspaper proprietor. received $12,500, in addition to several thousand dollars in One is the fact that the Lord Chief Justice has, with his costs. The law was accordingly amended to meet this class strong will and conspicuous good common sense, recently of cases, by giving to the defendant power to consolidate laughed three or four cases out of court, while in others he actions brought against two or more newspapers for the has used such language as plainly indicated that, unless same libel, and, also, to give evidence that compensation some agreement was speedily come to between the parties, for the same libel had been previously recovered by the he would instruct the jury to find for the defendant. The other influence which is working to abate the worst of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the bill by which the law was last amended evils of this kind of litigation is that which the newspapers was shorn of some of its more valuable features before it are bringing to bear on Parliament, where a bill has been was passed, and the bill now pending and on behalf of introduced dealing with the subject. It is not by any which .an influential delegation waited upon the Lord means the first of such measures. Before any statutes of Chancellor a few days ago was thought to be necessary. any kind whatever relating to libel had been placed on the This bill provides that the defendant may consolidate the books, the press was, in the eye of the law, a natural object action brought against him with others brought for the same of distrust and suspicion, and the mere proof of the publica libel against other persons at the commencement of the tion of an alleged libel, apart from all other circumstances, proceedings, instead of being compelled, as at present, to was sufficient to place the publisher at the mercy of any judge. This condition of affairs became so intolerable that | wait until the delivery of the statement of claim. But its most important feature is the clause which obliges the Fox's Libel Act of 1792 was passed. This act empowered plaintiff, at the discretion of the judge, to give security for juries, in indictments for libel, to give a general verdict, the costs of the action. Those who know what a scandal taking all the circumstances of the case into account, in actions for damages for personal injuries are becoming in cluding the truth or falsity of the words of the alleged libel, the western courts in the L'nited States will appreciate the instead of limiting the verdict to the mere proof of publica distrust with which speculative actions are looked upon tion. The next step was Lord Campbell's Act of 1843, here. It is true that in England a solicitor may not openly which enabled the defendant to pay money into court, such make an agreement for a contingent fee, but the costs are payment to defeat the civil action if deemed sufficient; to allowed on a liberal scale, and even if there is no agree plead truth and public benefit in a criminal proceeding, ment for a share of the damages recovered, there is ample and to show, in a criminal trial, that the publication was compensation, in the view at least of a certain class of without his consent or knowledge, and did not arise from solicitors, in the costs allowed under the scale. It is well want of care. In 1881 a further step was taken by the known among newspaper proprietors that many solicitors passing of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act of make a rule of watching the newspapers for personal allu that year, whereby inter alia privilege was given to fair sions likely to be productive of libel proceedings. In a reports of public meetings, and criminal proceedings were recent instance, a plaintiff in a libel case stated that on the prohibited except by permission of the public prosecutor, day following the appearance of the libel he was applied to while provision was made for the public registration of the by fourteen solicitors who wished to take up the case. As names of proprietors of newspapers. the costs follow the event, the solicitor gets fairly good pay, It was hoped that, by this last addition to the statute
