R v Horne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1777 |
| Date | 19 November 1777 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1300
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Bradlaugh v. Reg., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 631.
rex versus hornb. Wednesday, Nov. 19th, 1777. Upon an information against the defendant for a libel, for that he, &c. wickedly, maliciously and seditiously did write and publish, &c. a certain false, scandalous, and seditious libel " of and concerning His Majesty's Government and the employment of his troops" according to the tenor and effect following; (setting forth the libel verbatim).-The words "of and concerning" are a sufficient introduction of the matter contained in the libel, and a sufficient averment that it was written "of and concerning the King's Government, and the employment of his troops." [Referred to, Sradlaugh v. Reg., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 631.] This was an information filed against the defendant, by Edward Thurlow, Esq. His Majesty's Attorney General, on behalf of His Majesty, for writing, printing, atid publishing two libels. The first count in the information stated, " that the said John Home, being a wicked, malicious, seditious, and ill-disposed person, and being greatly disaffected to our said present Sovereign Lord the King, and to his administration of the Government of this kingdom, and the dominions thereunto belonging, and wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously intending, devising, and contriving to stir up and excite discontents and seditions among His Majesty's subjects, and to alienate and withdraw the affection, fidelity, and allegiance of His said Majesty's subjects from His said Majesty, and to 4COWF. 673. BEX V. HOBNE 1301 insinuate and cause it to be believed, that divers of His Majesty's innocent and deserving subjects had been inhumanly murdered by His said Majesty's troops in the province, colony, or plantation of the Massachuset's Bay, in New England, in America, belonging to the [673] Crown of Great Britain, and unlawfully and wickedly to seduce and encourage His said Majesty's subjects in the said province, colony or plantation, to resist and oppose His Majesty's Government, on the 8th day of June, in the 15th year of the reign, &c, with force and arms at London aforesaid, in the parish of St. Mary le Bow, in the ward of Cheap, wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously, did write and publish, and cause and procure to be written and published, a certain false, wicked, malicious, scandalous and seditious libel, of and concerning His said Majesty's Government, and the employment of his troops, according to the tenor and effect following: -'Kings Arms Tavern, Cornhill, June 7, 1775. At a special meeting this day of several members of the Constitutional Society, during an adjournment, a gentleman proposed, that a subscription should be immediately entered into, (by such of the members present who might approve the purpose,) for raising the sum of 1001. to be applied to the relief of the widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved Americau fellow subjects, who, faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were, for that reason only, inhumanly murdered by the King's (meaning His said Majesty's) troops, at or near Lexington and Concord, in the province of Massachuset's (meaning the said province, colony, or plantation of the Massachuset's Bay, in New England, in America,) on the 19th of last April; which sum being immediately collected, it was thereupon resolved, that Mr. Home (meaning himself the said John Home) do pay to-niorrow into the hands of Messieurs Brownes and Collison, on the account of Dr. Franklin, the said sum of 1001. and that Dr. Franklin be requested to apply the same to the above mentioned purpose.-John Home.' (meaning himself the said John Home) in contempt of our said lord the King, in open violation of the laws of this kingdom, to the evil and pernicious example of all others in the like case offending, and also against the peace of our said present Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and dignity." There were other counts in the information, charging the said John Home, with causing the same libel to be printed in the London Packet, or New Lloyd's Evening Post, and the Morning Chronicle, or London Advertiser. The count on the second libel was as follows, viz. that the said John Home being such person as aforesaid, and again unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously intending, devising, and contriving as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the 14th day of [674] July in the 15th year aforesaid, with force and arms at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously did write and publish, and cause and procure to be written and published, a certain false, wicked, malicious, scandalous, and seditious libel, of and concerning His said Majesty's Government, and the employment of his troops, according to the tenor and effect following: "I (meaning himself the said John Home) think it proper to give the unknown contributor this notice; that I (again meaning himself the said John Home) did yesterday pay to Messrs. Brownes and Collison, on the account of Dr. Franklin, the sum of 501. and that I (again meaning himself the said John Home) will write to Dr. Franklin, requesting him to apply the same to the relief of the widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved American fellow subjects, who, faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were (for that reason only) inhumanly murdered by the King's (meaning His said Majesty's) troops, at or near Lexington and Concord, in the province of Massachuset's (meaning the said province, colony, or plantation of the Maasachuset's Bay in New England in America) on the 19th of April last. John Home (again meaning himself the said John Home) in contempt of our said lord the King, in open violation of the laws of this kingdom, to the evil and pernicious example of all others in the like case offending, and also against the peace of our said present Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown, and dignity." Other counts were added for causing this last libel to be printed in the public newspapers. The defendant pleaded : " not guilty." The information was tried at the sittings in London, after Trinity term, 1777, before the Earl of Mansfield, by a special jury, and the defendant found guilty of all the offences charged in the information.-This day Mr. Home, in person, moved the Court in arreat of judgment, alleging that the information was insufficient, in as much as it did not aver that any rebellion had been in the colony of the Massachuset's Bay, 1302 REX V. HORNE 2 OOWP. 675. or that certain persons, who were denominated the King's troops, had been employed by His Majesty and his Government to quell that rebellion, or that any engagement had happened between the King's troops and the rebels, or that any of the rebels had been slain in such engagement by the King's troops, or that the advertisements, or that the charge of murder therein contained, had any relation [675] to such slaughter of the rebels, or to the action of the King's troops. He argued, that nothing can be intended beyond that which is expressly averred in the record. On the other hand, if by any possible construction or intendment those expressions which are said to be criminal, can receive an innocent sense, consistently with what is expressly averred in the record, the consequence is, that no crime is sufficiently alleged. That troops may mean flocks, or companies of strollers, or deserters, and if, in any supposable circumstances, the words complained of might have been said innocently, there is no crime charged in this record. He cited Mr. Justice Atkins's opinion, State Trials, vol. 3, 760, as to the insufficiency of the indictment against Lord Russel, charging him with a design to seize the guards for the preservation of the King, without averring, " who the King's guards were." Lord Mansfield.-Whatever the degree of guilt may be, how strongly soever it may have been proved, or whatever observations may have arisen in this case; yet if the defendant is entitled to a legal advantage from a literal flaw, God forbid he should not have the benefit of it. It is most certain, that at the trial, the information was considered to be, for words written " of and concerning the King's Government, and his employment of his troops ;" that is, the employment of the troops by Government. Upon that ground, the defendant called a witness, (Mr. Gould,) whom the Attorney General rose to object to. He was called to prove the contents of an affidavit made by him, and published in the papers. I told the defendant he could not be called to prove the contents ; but if he only meant to prove there was such an affidavit published, and by that, to explain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grubb v Bristol United Press Ltd
...if it was supported by some averment on the record. 14 In 1777 Lord Chief Justice de Grey, giving the unanimousdecision of the Judges in Rex v. Horne, 2 Cowper, 672: 98 English Reports, 1300, spoke of innuendoes at page 683:1306 His language is somewhat more empirical and less precise than ......
-
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd
... ... The true innuendo is that which depends on extraneous facts which the plaintiff has to prove in order to give the words the secondary meaning of which he complains ... The classic example is to be found in Barham v. Nethersal , F37 referred to by De Grey C.J. in Rex v. Horne F38 in the following passage relating to a charge of criminal libel: ... “But as an innuendo is only used as a word of explanation, it cannot extend the sense of the expressions in the libel beyond their own meaning; unless something is put upon the record for it to explain. As in actions upon ... ...
- Loughans v Odhams Press Ltd