and the statute requires an examination of the dead body, the whole wording of the statute shews that it is the bodies that are to be examined to find the cause of death. A coroner's inquiry would be useless if the coroner previously had by evidence to satisfy himself of the cause of death. In the present case it appears that there was at the least a reasonable suspicion, and indeed probably more than a reasonable suspicion. The police informed the coroner, the information came from parties whose business it was to look into these matters, probably the coroner honestly believed the information thus given to him. It is clear to my mind that in holding an inquest the coroner would only in such a case be doing his duty, and in this duty the defendants obstruct him by surreptitiously taking away the body and burning it. Their object was to prevent the inquest; the case in Mod. Rep. '(7 Mod. Rep. Case 15), seems to me in point. In the particular case the death was violent, that either means, appeared to have been a violent one, or it means, was discovered to have been a violent one when the inquest was held, but Lord Holt seems to indicate that the offence was the burying the child before the inquest so as to obstruct the inquest. If it is a crime to bury, a fortiori it is one to burn a body, because if you bury, exhumation is possible, but if you burn, the body is destroyed and examination is no longer possible. However, here it is enough to say the coroner had a right to hold the inquest, and the prisoners were wrong in secretly and intentionally burning the body to obstruct him in his duty of holding such inquest.

STEPHEN, J. I am of the same opinion. It is a misdemeanor to destroy a body upon which an inquisition is about to be properly held, with intent to prevent the holding of that inquest. This appears from many authorities and from the case in Mod. Rep. (7 Mod. Rep. Case 15). Is it true that it is a misdemeanor to interfere in a case where the coroner is of opinion that an inquest must be held, or is it necessary that the facts should be such that the inquest ought to be held? This matter is not absolutely covered by authority.. In one sense we do create new offences, that is to say, that as a Court we can and do define the law from time to time and apply it to the varying circumstances which arise. In Reg. v. Price, 12 Q. B. D. 247, 248, I said, "it is a misdemeanor to prevent the holding of an inquest which ought to be held by disposing of the body. It is essential to this offence that the inquest which it is proposed to hold is one which ought to be held. The coroner has not absolute right to hold inquests in every case in which he chooses to do so. It would be intolerable if he had power to intrude without adequate cause upon the privacy of a family in distress, and to interfere with their arrangements for a funeral. Nothing can justify such interference except a reasonable suspicion that there may have been something peculiar in the death, that it may have been due to other causes than common illness. In such cases the coroner not only may, but ought to hold an inquest, and to prevent him from doing so by disposing of the body in any way

for an inquest must be held

-

on the view of the body is a misdemeanor." I say the same thing now, and I concur in my brother Grove's view, indeed any other view would in my opinion be absurd. If a person destroys a dead body or removes it to prevent an inquest being held he is guilty of an offence if the inquest intended to be held was one that might lawfully be held. As has been said in the course of the argument, a man who obstructs an inquest in this way takes his chance of the inquest being one that it was right to hold. It is an obstruction of an officer of justice, it prevents the doing of that which the statute authorizes him to do.1

REX v. TIBBITS.

COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED. 1901.

[Reported 1902, 1 K. B. 77.]

LORD ALVERSTON, C. J. This was a case reserved by Kennedy, J., at the last summer assizes at Bristol. Indictments were preferred against two defendants, Charles John Tibbits and Charles Windust. The indictments contained sixteen counts, upon each of which the defendants were found guilty. The charges contained in the indictment related to the publication of certain matters in a newspaper called the Weekly Dispatch, between January 13, 1901, and March 4, 1901 (inclusive), and particularly to the issues of that newspaper dated respectively January 13 and February 3, 1901. Prior to the publication of the first article, two persons, named Allport and Chappell, had been charged before the magistrate with offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894. Further charges of attempting to murder, and of conspiracy to murder a child named Arthur Bertie Allport, and of a conspiracy to commit the offence against s. 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, were preferred against them. On February 8 Allport and Chappell were committed to take their trial at the next Bristol Assizes, which had been fixed to commence on February 20. Their trial on the indictment for the attempt to murder commenced before Day, J., on March 1, and terminated on March 5. They were found guilty, and sentenced, Allport to fifteen years' penal servitude and Chappel to five years' penal servitude. The publications in the Weekly Dispatch, which formed the subject of the present indictment against Tibbits and Windust, were statements relating to the case of Allport and Chappell, contained in the issues of the Weekly Dispatch during the hearing of the case against Allport and Chappell before the magistrate, and before and during the trial of these persons at the assizes. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to any of

1 Concurring opinions of Williams, Mathew, and Hawkins, J.J., are omitted. - ED. 2 The opinion only is given: it sufficiently states the case. Part of the opinion is omitted. ED.

the incriminated articles, of which those of January 13 and February 3 were the most important. It is sufficient to say that the publication went far beyond any fair and bona fide report of the proceedings before the magistrate. They contained, couched in a florid and sensational form, a number of statements highly detrimental to Allport and Chappell. Many of these statements related to matters as to which evidence could not have been admissible against them in any event, and purported to be the result of investigations made by the "Special Crime Investigator" of the newspaper. Under these circumstances it was contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was evidence upon which the jury might properly convict both the defendants on all the counts of the indictment. Upon the argument before us we had no doubt upon the main questions which had been discussed, but, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the importance of the case, we thought it desirable that we should endeavour to lay down as clearly as possible the law applicable to such a case. Points were raised and argued on behalf of the defendant Windust as distinguished from the defendant Tibbits. It will be convenient to postpone the discussion of those points until we have dealt with the main questions of law raised on behalf of both prisoners. It was not attempted to be argued by Mr. Foote, who appeared as counsel for both defendants, that the publication of such articles was lawful, and that the persons publishing such articles could not be punished. On the contrary, he contended that the publication of such articles was a contempt of Court, and could only properly be punished as such either by summary proceedings or indictment for contempt. He further urged that there was no evidence of any intention on the part of either of the defendants to pervert or interfere with the course of justice, and that any inference which might otherwise be drawn from the contents of the articles, that they were calculated to pervert or interfere with the course of justice, was negatived by the fact that the defendants Allport and Chappell had been subsequently convicted. That the publication of such articles constituted a contempt of Court and could be punished as such, is well established. One of the sorts of contempt enumerated by Hardwicke, L. C., in the year 1742, 2 Atk. 471, is prejudicing mankind against persons before the case was heard, and he adds these important words: "There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the realms of justice clear and pure that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters.' The case of Rex v. Jolliffe, 4 T. R. 285, shews that a criminal information lay for distributing in the assize town, before the trial at Nisi Prius, handbills reflecting on the conduct of a prosecutor, and, in the course of his judgment in that case, Lord Kenyon made the following very relevant observations, 4 T. R. at p. 298: "Now it is impossible for any man to doubt whether or not the publication of these papers be an offence. Even the charge on the prosecutor would of itself warrant us to grant the information; but that is a minor offence, when compared with that of publishing the papers in question

during the pendency of the cause at the assizes, and in the hour of trial. It is the pride of the constitution of this country that all causes should be decided by jurors, who are chosen in a manner which excludes all possibility of bias, and who are chosen by ballot, in order to prevent any possibility of their being tampered with. But, if an individual can break down any of those safeguards which the constitution has so wisely and so cautiously erected, by poisoning the minds of the jury at a time when they are called upon to decide, he will stab the administration of justice in its most vital parts. And, therefore, I cannot forbear saying, that, if the publication be brought home to the defendant, he has been guilty of a crime of the greatest enormity." Again, in the case of Rex v. Fisher, 2 Camp. 563, the printer, publisher, and editor, were convicted for publishing a scandalous, defamatory, and malicious libel, intending to injure one Richard Stephenson, charged with assault, and deprive him of the benefit of an impartial trial, "and to injure and prejudice him in the minds of the liege subjects of our lord the King and to cause it to be believed that he was guilty of the said assault and thereby to prevent the due administration of justice and to deprive the said Richard Stephenson of the benefit of an impartial trial." It was urged on behalf of the defendants that this was an indictment for libel, and that, therefore, it was no authority for the indictment in the present case. But, if the judgment of Lord Ellenborough is examined, it will be noted that the main ground of the judgment is that the publication would tend to pervert the public mind and disturb the course of justice and therefore be illegal, and we cannot doubt that, if the attempt so to do be made, or means taken, the natural effect of which would be to create a wide-spread prejudice against persons about to take their trial, an offence has been committed, whatever the means adopted, provided there be not some legal justification for the course pursued. The case of Rex v. Williams, 2 L. J. (K.B.) (O.S.) 30, is another distinct authority for the same view, in which it was laid down that any attempt whatever to publicly prejudge a criminal case, whether by a detail of the evidence or by a comment, or by a theatrical exhibition, is an offence against public justice and a serious misdemeanour. The publication of proceedings publicly held in a Court of Justice, if fair and accurate, has now the protection of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64), s. 3. The law as laid down in the older cases to which we have referred was summarised by Blackburn, J., in Skipworth's Case, L. R. 9 Q. B. 230, at p. 232, and with reference to the objection that the more proper proceeding should be by proceedings for contempt of Court, we would refer to the judgment of the Court in Reg. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q. B. 36, from which it clearly appears that in many cases it is preferable to proceed by information or indictment rather than by motion for contempt. We have no doubt whatever that the publication of the articles in this case, at the time when, and under the circumstances in which they were published, constitutes a criminal offence by whomsoever they were published. We think that the facts, which bring

the incriminated articles within the category of misdemeanour, abundantly appear upon the face of each count, and that, under those circumstances, it is perfectly immaterial whether the articles be described and charged as libels or contempts or not. With reference to the argument, which was strongly urged, that there was no evidence of any intention to pervert the course of justice, we are clearly of opinion, for the reasons given in the authorities to which we have referred, that this is one of the cases in which the intent may properly be inferred from the articles themselves and the circumstances under which they were published. It would, indeed, be far-fetched to infer that the articles would in fact have any effect upon the mind of either magistrate or judge, but the essence of the offence is conduct calculated to produce, so to speak, an atmosphere of prejudice in the midst of which the proceedings must go on. Publications of that character have been punished over and over again as contempts of Court, where the legal proceedings pending did not involve trial by jury, and where no one would imagine that the mind of the magistrates or judges charged with the case would or could be induced thereby to swerve from the straight course. The offence is much worse where trial by jury is about to take place, but it certainly is not confined to such cases. We further think that, if the articles are in the opinion of the jury calculated to interfere with the course of justice or pervert the minds of the magistrate or of the jurors, the persons publishing are criminally responsible: see Reg. v Grant, 7 St. Tr. (N.S.) 507. We are also of opinion that the fact that Allport and Chappell, the persons referred to, were subsequently convicted can have no weight in the decision of the question now before us. To give effect to such a consideration would involve the consequence that the fact of a conviction, though resulting, either wholly or in part, from the influence upon the minds of the jurors at the trial of such articles as these, justifies their publication. This is an argument which we need scarcely say reduces the position almost to an absurdity, and, indeed, its chief foundation would appear to be a confusion between the course of justice and the result arrived at. A person accused of crime in this country can properly be convicted in a Court of Justice only upon evidence which is legally admissible and which is adduced at his trial in legal form and shape. Though the accused be really guilty of the offence charged against him, the due course of law and justice is nevertheless perverted and obstructed if those who have to try him are induced to approach the question of his guilt or innocence with minds into which prejudice has been instilled by published assertions of his guilt or imputations against his life and character to which the laws of the land refuse admissibility as evidence.

We have now only to consider the special points which were taken on behalf of the defendant Windust.

Conviction Affirmed.