1806. CARR versus JONES. had been found by the grand jury, upon the evidence of the said Robert at the preceding sessions, for an assault upon the said Robert, and the said William farther says, that, when the trial of the said Thomas Murrow came on, no witness appeared against him, and although the said Robert in his exculpatory address to the jury, expressly mentioned and urged the fact of a bill having been found against the said Thomas Murrow,for a violent assault upon him the said Robert, yet the counsel of the said Robert in the said supposed Jibels called his professional associate, said it was not the intention of the said Robert to proceed against the said Thomas Murrow; and the said William further says, that some reference was made to a former publication of the said Robert, the grammatical ignorance and absurdity of which the said Thomas Murrow, had offered to point out for the author's amusement or emendation. That this was proposed as a reply or rather as a punishment, for some very insolent and confounded language used by the said Robert. That the imputation of the said Robert's ignorance of the common rules of grammar, was not opposed but urged as a ground of irritation, and that the said Mr. Parr in the said supposed libels mentioned, as counsel for the prosecution did then and there make such statements and observations as are in the said supposed libels in that behalf mentioned. And the said William further says, that the jury who tried the said Robert did pronounce the said Robert guilty of the said assault upon the said Thomas Murrow, in manner as in the said supposed libels is mentioned, and that the supposed libels do contain a just and faithful account of the trial of the said Robert for the said assault, and of the proceedings thereupon, wherefore he the said William, did print and publish the said supposed libels, as he lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify, &c. He also pleaded, as to the printing and publishing such parts of the said several supposed libels, as purport to contain an account or statement of the trial of the said Robert, at the borough sessions of Liverpool aforesaid, for an assault upon the said Thomas Murrow, and of the trial of the said Thomas Murrow, at the same sessions for an assault upon the said Robert, and of the facts, circumstances, and statements which occurred, took place, and were made, respectively, upon the said trials; that, before the printing and publishing of the said supposed libels, or any of them, to wit, on Wednesday the 23d day of April, in the year aforesaid, at Liverpool aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, at the general quarter sessions of the peace, held in and for the said borough of Liverpool, the said Robert was tried and found guilty upon a certain indictment, there depending in the said court, of an assault upon the said Thomas Murrow; and the said Thomas Murrow was tried and acquitted, upon a certain indictment therein also depending against him, for an assault upon the said Robert; and that the said parts of the said several supposed libels, in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, contain a just and faithful account of the said last mentioned trials, and of the facts, circumstances, and statements, which respectively occurred, took place, and was made thereupon; wherefore the said William did print and publish the said parts of the said supposed libels, in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, as he lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore he prays judgment, if the said Robert, ought to have or maintain his action aforesaid, thereof against him. And for further plea as to the printing and publishing such parts of the said several supposed libels, as relate to the finding of a bill by the grand jury, against the said Thomas Murrow for an assault upon the said Robert, upon the oath of the said Robert, the said 1806. CARR Versus JONES. 1806. CARR versus JONES. William, by leave of the court here for this purpose, first had and obtained according to the form of the statute, in that case made and provided, says, that the said Robert ough, not to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof, against him in that behalf, because he says that, before the printing and publishing of the said supposed libels or any of them, to wit, on the same day and year last mentioned at Liverpool aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said Robert was tried at the general quarter sessions of the peace, then held in and for the said borough of Liverpool, upon an indictment therein depending against him, for an asault upon the said Thomas Murrow, at a certain arbitration, before that time held under an order of the court of common sessions in that place. And the said William further says, that although at the trial last aforesaid, it clearly appeared from the testimony of every person that was in the room where the said arbitration was held, except the said Robert, that no violence was used by the said Thomas Murrow, yet true it is that a violent assault had been sworn against the said Thomas Murrow, by the said Robert before a grand jury, at the preceding quarter sessions in and for the borough aforesaid, and that a bill of indictment had been in consequence thereof found by the said grand jury, against the said Thomas Murrow for an assault upon the said Robert as in the said supposed libel is mentioned, wherefore the said William did print and publish the said parts of the said several supposed libels, in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, as he lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore, &c. Yo the second plea, the plaintiff demurred, generally; and to the third also demurred, stating for cause, that it does not appear in and by the introduction, in and by the said third plea, nor can it in any manner be 3 collected therefrom, what the said plea means to jus- CLARKE, James. "This is a question whether a publication, pretending to be an account of judicial proceedings, be a libel, as to those parts which are justified, or whether the justification is good. In deciding it, the court will not be called upon to say, that if a fair account be given of the proceedings of a conrt of justice, for the information of the public, it is a libel. The first count charges the libel to be printed and published of the plaintiff, concerning his character as a clerk of the court of requests, and charging him with perjury; all that the justification states is, that he 1826. CARR versus JONES, committed an assault on Mr. M. which can in fact, have no reference to the libel entitled Judicial Delinquency, or to the plaintiff's having done anything wrong in the court of requests; nor has the defendant any right, because the plaintiff has committed an assault, to bring him before the public for something else. On the contrary, the justification ought to have answered the charge, for publishing the libel entitled Judicial Delinquency. This charge is, that it contains an imputation of perjury; which is not capable of being justified, and which is not here confessed. The plaintiff's conduct is in the libel charged to be such as to defile human nature, and yet, when the libel is justified, it appears, by the pleadings, only to have been an attempt to prove an assault by the testimony of some persons, which testimony being heard and being met by that of others, the verdict is given, not guilty. If the defendant would justify it as a report of legal proceedings, he ought to have stated those proceedings as they passed, and left it to others to draw their own conclusions. In Jacob v. Southey, there was an action for imputing perjury to one, and the defence was that it was found by verdict that the plaintiff was perjured, but no judgment was entered; and whether the plea was good or not, was the question; and it was adjudged no plea, because there should have been a judgment. This, therefore, can be no justification, as to the charge of perjury. This objection goes in substance to the whole of the pleadings, upon general demurrer, that the matter justified is incapable of justification: and the justifications by no means cover the allegations in the libel." * LAWRENCE, J. "On these pleadings, it may be * Brownlow, 11. |