IMPORTANT TO EDITORS

Evening Star, Issue 12625, 3 October 1905, Page 8

IMPORTANT TO EDITORS

On August 12, before the Chief Justice of i England, Mr Justices Lawran.ee and Ridley, was heard the rule nisi in the matter of a criminal information laid by eight Liverpool justices of ths-peace against Sir E. R. Russell and Mr Alexander G. Jeans, publishers, editor, and proprietors of the "Livejpocl Daily Post and Mercury.' The applicants, who included Mr Isaac Morris (deputy-chairman of the Liverpool Licensing Committee), charged the defendaats with having published an alleged criminal libel in connection with the performance of the magistrates' licensing duties. It appeared that in Liverpool there are 152 justices of the peace, and at a meeting this year sixteen were delegated to take charge of the licensing duties. On March 22 the Committee unanimously reported that twenty-nine licenses should be token away, and on March 29 the leport was unanimously adopted by the full bench of justices. On July 12 a meeting of the Licensing Committee took place to determine the amount of the levy. Eighteen cases had been 'agreed, the total amount claimed -n those cases being but £7,850 being accepted in settlement. In ihe remaining ten cases £13,541 was claimed, which, upon the sama basis of settlement, would amount to £8,480. On July 13 there appeared in the columns of the 'Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury' a comment which formed the subject of the present charge. It was said in the course of the article that "the Bench had not ventured the extinction of a single full license, but had picked oat a few of the 1869 beerhouses in the A and B division for extinction under the Act." It added as the "only one explanation'' that u the dominant party on the Bench did not act," and concluded with the foflowmg comment; ** The effeefcof tJteCtommTfctfe'sdecjekm win be to make the rote of reduction actually less than it was under the old order of things—a result winch no doubt was shrewdly foreseen. We congratulate the trade npon the ability and courage oi their friends —we had almost said iieir representati*s—on the Licensing Oanrl^iUee.' , In respect of these observations the rule nisi was granted .caning upon the defendants, to show cause why they snouid not be committed for contempt of cowt. Mr Asquith appeared to show cause against the rule, remarking that be understood that Mr Jeans had nothing to do with the libel, although he took upon himself as editor the whole responsibility. He submitted that there was no ground whatever for a criminal irrformatkm ia this case. No doubt crmimal informations were in ether times more generally granted in regard to comments appearing in the Press, but the tendency of modern times was to confine such a course of legal procedure to cases in whicK ihe, administration of justice had been seriously interfered with. He cootended thai the magistrates were only rarercising adtrarastrative functions, and wwe not acting in any sense judicially, and therefore submitted that a criminal uiiarma, tion did not lie. Sir K Clarke, in support of the rule, siid that the really serious part of the libel was that it mentioned by name gentlemen who were discharging a public duty, and charged them with acting in the »f tU browers and others associated with the liquor trade. They were charged wuh having allowed themselves to be influenced by motives other than the propel ailuimi&tratkm of justice. To charge a magistrate with corruption in an adruimstrative capacity was as equally a libel as it would be to charge him with corruptM* in a judicial capacity. . . . . The Lord Chief Justice, m grrrng judgment, said be thought the rote sh.wJd be made absohrte, although the <**» was vts-y near the border line. It would_be detrimental to public interests if pubEe officials were not protected, whether acting judicially or admmisti*rjvely. Had the ease arisen, out of a political discussion he would be slow to allow the criminal law to be put into force, but the persons invoking the aid of the Court were exercising a duty that had* been imposed on them by statute, and in the libel complained of the justices were charged with not having discharged a public duty fairly, and with attempting to de-

'feat the Act. It wotdd be sufficient Jto make the -rale absolute as against' Sir E. BasseO. Mr Justine Lawrence and Mr Justice Bidley agreed, and 'was made absolute, and' discharged as against Mr Joans fuM poMVllsark