a matter of interest to all humane persons, is not a matter of such general interest to the public, that is, to all the public, as to make the publication of a report of what passes on the subject at a meeting of a local board of guardians privileged by the occasion. It was upon some doubt as to which of these arguments ought to prevail that we took time to consider. After consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, where this kind of privilege is invoked, it must be shewn either that the person of whom the defamatory matter is written was a person whose position and character are of general interest to the whole country, or that the subject-matter dealt with is one of general interest to the whole country; and that it is not enough to shew that he fills a public character of a limited kind and in a limited district, or that the subject-matter dealt with is a matter of interest only to a small portion of the public, or to the public in a limited district, and not a matter of general public interest.
Now, as regards this plaintiff, he was shewn to be a most respectable person, and, when the matter came to be investigated, it turned out that there was no real imputation upon his character or conduct. But the character of such a person can hardly be said to be a matter of public interest to the whole country. It is, no doubt, of interest to the people of the district the poor of which are committed to his professional care, but nothing more. Such a question of character, interesting to the whole country, might arise with regard to a Secretary of State or a public board having to deal generally with the whole of the poor of the kingdom. But this gentleman's duties were strictly confined to a limited district, and therefore neither as to his person nor as to the subject-matter with which he had to deal can it be said that the general public could have any interest in it. It is impossible, therefore, to bring this case within the rule acted upon in this Court in the case of Davis v. Duncan. (1) There, the libel public meeting for
complained of was a report of what passed at a
the election of a member of Parliament in reference to the conduct of certain persons, with comments thereon: and it was held that the character of a member of Parliament, who has to represent
(1) Law Rep. 9 C. P. 396.
not only his own particular constituency but the whole country when elected, is of such public interest to the whole country as to warrant fair comment and criticism upon his character and conduct.
Kelly v. Tinling (1) has perhaps gone further than any other case upon the subject. The defendant had commented in a newspaper upon the conduct of the plaintiff, a clergyman, with reference to matters occurring in the church and in the vestry-room: and the Court of Queen's Bench held that the conduct of a clergyman of the Church of England in the recognized public worship of the kingdom was a matter of public interest which might be made the subject of public discussion, inasmuch as "the maintenance of decency and propriety in conducting public worship, and of the sanctity of the sacred edifice, and all connected with it, is a matter of the greatest public concern." In Henwood v. Harrison (2) the comments were upon the character of a person whose character individually was of no public interest, but they were made in reference to his capacity to deal with a plan for the re-construction of the navy of England; and it was held that therefore the comments were justifiable, being made with reference to a matter of great public interest to the whole kingdom. And in Wason v. Walter (3) comments on charges made by a member of Parliament in a speech in the House of Commons impugning the character and conduct of a learned judge, were held to be privileged, on the ground that the character and conduct of a judge, who is charged to administer justice to all the subjects of the Queen, are of the highest possible public interest and concern.
In all these instances the privilege has been confined to the publication of reports or comments upon persons whose position was of public interest to the whole community, or with reference to matters of public interest to the whole community. Here, however, neither the position of the person whose conduct is commented upon nor the subject-matter with which the libel deals is of such general and public interest and importance as to bring the defendants within the protection of privilege.
(2) Law Rep. 7 C. P. 606.
(1) Law Rep. 1 Q. B. 699.
The motion to enter judgment for the defendants therefore fails, and the judgment entered for the plaintiff at the trial will stand.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Solicitor for plaintiff: C. W. Dommett, for John Robinson Barling, Manchester.
Solicitors for defendants: Johnson & Weatheralls, for Stevenson, Lycett, & Co., Manchester.
The Mode of Citation of the Volumes in the Three Series of the LAW REPORTS, commencing
January 1, 1876, will be as follows:-
ACCOUNT STATED-Mayor's Court
See CAUSE OF ACTION. 1, 2.
ACT OF GOD-Common carrier
See COMMON CARRIER,
ACTION-Assault-Previous conviction
87, 242 | AFFIDAVIT WITH BILL OF SALE—continued.
A document purporting to be a copy bill of sale,
and dated the 8th day of April, 1875, indorsed
with the above names, was registered at the judg-
ment office of the Court of Queen's Bench on the
15th day of April, 1875:"-Held, no evidenco
of the statute had been filed with the bill of sale.
that an affidavit satisfying all the requirements
MASON v. WOOD
AGENT-Cheque-Indorsement
See CHEQUE.
Commission-Evidence
See PREVIOUS CONVICTION.
ACTION FOR RENT-CHARGE-Action of Debt for
Arrears-Venue.] An action of debt having been
brought for arrears of a rent-charge upon lands
in Australia prior to the commencement of the
Judicature Act:-Held, affirming the decision of
the Court below, that the venue in such action
was local, and that it could not therefore be main-
tained in this country. WHITAKER v. FORBES
ADMINISTRATION-Notice to creditors
See NOTICE TO CREDITORS.
ADMISSION-Agent-Commission
See COMMISSION OF AGENT.
Contract-Liability C. A. 100, 374, 533
See CONTRACT BY AGENT. 1, 2.
Contract-Ratification -
See CONTRACT BY AGENT.
Ship Managing owner
See SHIP'S HUSBAND.
505 AMENDMENT-Election petition
See ELECTION PETITION.
See COMMISSION OF AGENT.
AFFIDAVIT WITH BILL OF SALE-Bill of Sale
-Attesting Witness, Description of "Gentle-
man."] The attesting witness to a bill of sale
was described in the affidavit required by 17 &
18 Vict. c. 36 as " gentleman." He had been a
proctor's managing clerk, but had ceased to be so
for six years. Since that time he had lived on
an allowance from his mother, and had, on a few
occasions, collected debts and written letters for
other persons, and had drawn four bills of sale,
but he had no regular occupation:-Held, that
the description "gentleman
was sufficient.
SMITH V. CHEESE
See COUNTY COURT APPEAL.
Divisional Court-Judge
See DIVISIONAL Court,
House of Lords-Practice
See HOUSE OF LORDS APPEAL.
Security for costs
See NEGLIGENCE OF SERVANT. 2.
Security for costs
See SECURITY FOR COSTS.
ARBITRATION- Lands Clauses Act-Stating
380, C. A. 402
See COMPENSATION UNDER LANDS CLAUSES
ACT. 1.
See REFERENCE TO MASTER.
ARREST OF DEBTOR-County Court-Commit-
ment under Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62),
8. 5-Prohibition-Costs.] Where a debtor has
once been committed upon a judgment-summons
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.hk/books/content?id=4wgxAAAAIAAJ&hl=zh-TW&output=html_text&pg=PA792&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:STANFORD36105003490948&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0fIy2n2FF55uOvmKI0jDp9zFNEhA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=983,168,12,16)
ARREST OF DEBTOR-continued.
under the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62),
s. 5, for non-payment of a debt, though for a
period short of six weeks (the limit imposed by
by that section), a second warrant of commitment
cannot issue against him in respect of the same
debt.-Where, however, the order or judgment
makes the debt payable by instalments, the debtor
may be committed for the full period of six weeks
for default in payment of each instalment.
EVANS v. WILLS
229
2. Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62),
8. 5-Jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court under.]
The 5th section of the Debtors Act, 1869, gives
power to all Courts, including inferior courts, to
make orders and to commit to prison, not only in
respect of orders or judgments of inferior courts,
but also in respect of those of the superior Courts,
to the extent of 501.-Held, that the jurisdic-
tion of the Mayor's Court, London, under the
Act, is confined to cases in which the debtor
is at the time of the issuing of the sum-
mons resident or carrying on business within its
limits.-Quære, whether it is not also limited to
cases in which that court would have had juris-
diction over the original cause of action.-The BAIL IN ERROR-House of Lords
power given to inferior courts by the Act to
rescind or vary orders, does not enable an inferior
court to rescind or vary an order of a superior
Court on a judgment of the latter. WASHER.
ASSESSMENT TO POOR-RATE—continued.
such moorings, which had continued there for
some years, and was used by the plaintiffs for the
purposes of unloading and re-loading coal in the
course of their business as coal merchants. The
moorings so laid down consisted of anchors and
stones, which were laid down in deep holes, dug
in the bed of the river, and covered in with large
quantities of ballast. The moorings so formed
were of a permanent character, and it would have
been impossible for the derrick using them to
weigh them in the ordinary way in which ships
weigh anchor:-Held, reversing the decision of
the Court below, that the plaintiffs were the
occupiers of the moorings, and were liable to be
rated in respect of such occupation. CORY .
ASSAULT-Action-Previous conviction
See PREVIOUS CONVICTION.
ASSESSMENT TO POOR-RATE - Poor-rate·
Rateability of Moorings in the River Thames-
Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, 20 & 21 Vict.
c. cxlvii. 8. 91.] The conservators of the river
Thames, who are by statute owners of the river
bed, gave permission, by resolution, to the plain-
tiffs to lay down certain moorings in the river
bed, and place a derrick hulk at them, the work |
to be done to the satisfaction of the conservators
and under the inspection of the harbour master,
and to remain on certain conditions being agreed
to and observed by the plaintiffs. These con-
ditions provided that a certain rent should be
paid for the moorings, and specified the purposes
for, and the manner in which, the hulk was to be
used, and that in all other respects it was to be
worked to the satisfaction of the conservators,
under the inspection of the harbour master; and
the permission was expressed to be granted on the
full understanding, on the part of the plaintiffs,
that if at any time thereafter it should be found
inexpedient to permit the moorings for the derrick
hulk to remain in that or any other part of the
river, the conservators would, under the powers
vested in them by the 91st section of the Thames
Conservancy Act, cause the same to be removed.
That section provides that no mooring chains
shall be put down in the river without the per-
mission of the conservators, and that the conser-
vators may at any time, by giving a week's notice
in writing, require such mooring chains to be re-
moved; and if not removed accordingly, may
themselves remove them.-In pursuance of the
permission so given, the plaintifs procured moor-
ings to be laid down, paying for the necessary
labour and materials, and placed a derrick hulk at
C. A. 54
ASSIGNEE OF REVERSION-Notice to tenant
See COVENANT TO REPAIR. 2. [106
ASSIGNMENT OF ALL DEBTOR'S PROPERTY—
Fraud
See FRAUD ON CREDITORS.
ATTACHMENT-Personal service
See WAIVER OF PERSONAL SERVICE,
See HOUSE OF LORDS APPEAL.
BAILMENT-Railway company-Condition 618
See CONDITION ON TICKET.
BANKER-Cheque-Indorsement
See CHEQUE.
BANKRUPTCY-Composition
See COMPOSITION. 1, 2.
Illegal contract -
See FRAUD ON CREDITORS.
BUILDING CONTRACT-Interpretation of Con
tract- Penalty for Delay-Notice to avoid the
Contract-Forfeiture of Implements and Mate-
rials.] A building contract by which the plain-
tiffs contracted with the defendants to construct a
dock and other works in connection therewith,
provided as follows:-"Should the contractor fail
to proceed in the execution of the works in the
manner and at the rate of progress required by
the engineer, or to maintain the said works, as
hereinafter mentioned, to the satisfaction of the
engineer, his contract shall, at the option of the
company but not otherwise, be considered void as
far as relates to the works or maintenance re-
maining to be done; and all sums of money that
may be due to the contractor, together with all
materials and implements in his possession and all
sums named as penalties for the non-fulfilment of
|