Cox v Feeney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 445
Nisi Prius
Referred to, Allbutt v. General Medical Council (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 405.
midland circuit Warwick Civil Court, Warwickshire Summer Assizes, 1863, coram Cockburn, C. J. Cox v. feeney. (In an action for libel, consisting of a publication in a newspaper of a report of an inspector of chanties under the Charitable Trusts Act, containing a letter, written some years before, reflecting on the plaintiff in his management of a college : held, that as the matter was one of pubbc interest, the defendant was not liable, provided he published it fairly, from an honest desire to afford the public information, and that comments on it were only material as evidence of malice.) [Referred to, Allbutt v General Medical Council (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 405.] Action against the proprietor of a newspaper for libel. The alleged libel consisted of the following passage in a letter of complaint addressed by a clergyman, Dean of Queen's College, Birmingham, to the Bishop of Worcester, in June, 1859, relative to the management of that ingti-[14]-tution, and in particular relative to the conduct of the plaintiff, a professor in the College - " I complain of the arbitrary, tyrannical and overbearing conduct of Professor H Cox towards all who profess to differ from him in opinion, as well as of his complete inefficiency in every office which he now holds in the college, and I pray your Lordship to avert the impending destruction of the institution by at once removing him therefrom " (a) 3 F. & F. 389 (b) The case was not moved, and it is obvious the nonsuit was right, not merely because the " ganger " was paid by the job, but because he engaged and paid the men upon his own terms, and they were engaged only by him, and the defendants had no control over them The question as to the application of the doctrine of Pnestley v. Fowler therefore did not, and perhaps could not, arise, for the plaintiff was not in any sense in a common employment-his work was different, and his employers were different. Vide Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company, Q. B., M. T. 444 COX V. FEENEY 4 P. & F. 15. This letter having been addressed to the Bishop in July, 1859, and inserted in a report of an Inspector of Charities in March, 1860, was published by the defendant aloag with the whole of the contents of the report in June, 1863, upon which, after a leitter from the plaintiff requiring; a publir apolugv, the present action was brought Plea : Not guilty. Macautay, Hayes, Serjt, and Field for the plaintiff. Coleridge, F Stephen, Wills, and Chandos Leigh f -i the (Ufendant Tlie plaintiff, a medical man of some eminence, had been mainly instrumental in establishing in Birmingham a medical college, for which a charter was obtained undei the name of Queen's College, and this was the institution referred to in the libel. The Bishop of Worcester was Visitor, and at the time of the letter and its publication the writer a doctor Dr Blunt was Dean of the Faculty, and the plaintiff was one of the Professors In 1859, Dr Blunt wrote a letter as Dean to the Bishop as Visitor, demanding an inquiry which did not at that time take place. At this time various comments had been made by the defendant m his newspaper on the conduct and management of the college, reflecting severely on the plaintiff ; and for this, in 1859, the plaintiff brought an action, which was discontinued on the publication of an article disclaiming any imputation on his professional or per-sontl character In 1859, the Charity Commissioners (a) [15] sent down an inspector to institute an inquiry into the working of the college, and he held an open and publir inquiry (6), and in March, 1860, the inspector made his report, in which he set forth the letter containing the libel And in June, 1863, the defendant published the whole of the report, including that letter It appeared that the inquiiy was open and public, and that the whole of the report was published Coleridge, for the defence, submitted that the publication \\as privileged as a matter of a public nature, and of public interest, and for public information Macaulay, for the plaintiff, contended that the publication of the report, nearly three years after it was made could not be for public information Cockburn, C J.-Information, though old, may he valuable And if the publication was with a view to give the pubbc information on a subject of public interest it would be a ground of defence. It will be for the jury whether that was the object or motive ; but as to that it is very material that it is admitted the letter was part of the report, and that it was not singled out for publication but that the whole of the report was published. Macaulay relied upon the previous publications m 1858-9, and also on the comments made on the reports, as evidence of mabce. Cackburn, C J -That may be very material ; and above all it is important to see haw the publication of the report was prefaced or introduced An article which appeared in the defendant's paper in [16] May (c) was put in with this view It introduced the publication thus -by observing that though brief extracts from the report had been occasionally quoted in the newspapers, the document in its entirety had not been published 1 believe that this was a publication bond fide for the purpose of affoidmg the pubbc information as to the condition and prospects of the institution What can you say ? Macaulay urged that the matter had become stale, and that the publication of the report revived it wantonly Cockbuin, C. J.-But the evidence elicited shows that the institution is still in an unsatisfactory state, that it is m debt, and that the interposition of the Court of Chancery haa been appealed to , and surely it is a fit subject for general information and general discussion. I hardly know indeed of any subject which could be more propeily so. Macaulay urged that the letter stood alone in the report-quite unconnected with it-contained in it indeed, but not at all referred to , und tis it was obiter (a) Vide the Charitable Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855 (16 & 17 Viet c 137 ; 18 & 19 Viet. c. 124), under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaga (Edward) v Harper (Leslie)
...has the legal, social or moral duty to make it and the public has the corresponding interest in the subject. 29 In Cox v. Feeney [1863] 4 F & F 13, 176 E.R. 445, Cockburn, C.J., accepting that publication to the world at large in some circumstances is privileged as stated by Lord Tenterden,......
-
Neethling v Du Preez and Others; Neethling v the Weekly Mail and Others
...facts have been ascertained to be true, or been made the subject of a report, there may be a duty to report them (see eg Cox v Feeney (1863) 4 F & F 13, 176 ER 445, Perera v Peiris [1949] AC 1 and Dunford Publicity Studios Ltd v News Media Ownership Ltd [1971] NZLR 961), provided the public......
-
Abkar Singh Rai v Jaskaran Singh Bholowasia and Another
...facts have been ascertained to be true, or been made the subject of a report, there may be a duty to report them (see, e.g., Cox v Feeney 4 F&F 13i; Perera v Peiris [1949] AC 1 and Dunford Publicity Studios Ltd. v. News Media Ownership Ltd. [1971] N.Z.L.R. 961), provided the public interest......
-
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
...there are occasions when the public interest requires that publication to the world at large should be privileged. In Cox v. Feeney (1863) 4 F. & F. 13, 19, Cockburn C.J. approved an earlier statement by Lord Tenterden C.J. that 'a man has a right to publish, for the purpose of giving the p......