12 Vin. Abr. 229. pl. 5. The King v. Strahan.

To which is added, that S. was a Bookfeller, and it could not be fuppofed but he had thefe Papers by Way of Trade; too foreign to fuppofe any one left them in his Shop. And whereas another Libel was found in his Pocket, it could not be fuppofed but that it was concealed there for a private Sale, no one taking upon him to fell fuch Things in public, and S. being informed against for publishing thefe Libels, he was found Guilty. Ibid.

which has

the Government, or a

If a Printer compofe a Libel against a private Perfon Printing a not in Authority, he may be indicted and punished for dying Speech it; and fo he may who prints a Libel against a Magiftrate, Words remuch more one who does it against the King and State. flecting on Nor can the Defendant excufe himself by faying they were dying Speeches, or the Words of dying Men; for private Perif a Man would be as wicked at his Death as he had been fon, crimi. in his Life, and juftify his Villainy, he who publishes it is punishable: As where a Highwayman fhall at the Gallows arraign the Juftice of the Law, and of the Judges who condemned him, he who publishes this shall not go unpunished. 4 Read. Stat. Law 154.

nal.

No (a) Excufe for the printing or publishing a Libel, No Excufe to fay he did it in the Way of Trade, without Malice to say it was or ill Design against the Government, or to maintain his his Trade Family. A Thief might as well fay, he ftole to main- Books. tain his Wife and Children. Stat. Tri. 982.

to print

ed, and the

Refolved by all the Judges, that where Perfons write, Pamphlets print, or fell any Pamphlet, fcandalizing the Public, or pri- may be feizvate Perfons, fuch Books might be feized, and the Per- Authors and fons punished by Law; and that all Perfons expofing Publishers Books to Sale reflecting on the Government, might be punished. punifhed; and farther, that all Writers of News, tho' Writers of not fcandalous, feditious, or reflecting on the Government, falle News if they wrote falfe News, were indictable and punishable. punishable. 4 Read. Stat. Law, 154.

This was an Information, tried before the Chief Juf- What shall tice Raymond, at the Sittings in London, which charged the be faid to be Defendant with printing and publishing an infamous Libel a Libel.

(a) But fill, where a Man appears to be well affected to the Government, and that it was a mere Overfight, he is feldom dealt with rigorously; especially if he declares who was his Author. See Doctor Middleton's Cale, Chap. 26.

called

tothe Crown

rowed

the Preten

men.

Printer.
Evidence

66 Mift's called "Mift's Weekly Journal," wherein the King's Weekly Journal!" Title to the Crown was openly ftruck at, his Legitimawherein the Cy called in queftion, and the Perfons of feveral of the King's Title Royal Family fcandaloufly traduced under borrowed Names; and his Le- by reprefenting King George the First, under the Name gitimacy of Merewits, the late King under that of Efreff, the were called Queen under that of Sultana; and at the fame time drawin Question. RoyalFami- ing a beautiful Character of the Pretender in the Name ly traduced of the young Sophi, and fetting forth the Tyranny and under bor- Subjection all Englishmen lay under, by reprefenting us Names. under the Name of the Perfians. The Charge against the Beautiful Defendant was for maliciously and traiteroufly printing of Character of one of thefe Papers in particular; but the Evidence proder. duced was, that he acted merely as a Servant to the PrinSubjection ter, and his Business was only to clap down the Prefs; of English and few or no Circumftances were offered of his knowDefendant ing the import of the Paper, or being conscious of doing charged as any thing illegal. Upon which Serjeant Hawkins took two Exceptions in his Argument for the Defendant; one, that he act that this Paper ought by no means to be thought a Libel ed as Ser- upon the Royal Family; because the Characters that are Painter, here drawn, are by no means agreeable to the Persons supwhole bufi- pofed to be reprefented; but if any thing relating to them, nefs was to intirely oppofite to what each are known to deserve: The the printing other that the Evidence against Defendant by no means Prefs. comes up to the Charge; for the Fact is charged to be Two Excep- attended with a malicious and traiterous Design, whereas ift, no Libel nothing comes out upon the proof, but that it was done through ignorance, and in Obedience to his Master's AuRoyal Fa- thority. But the Attorney (a) General answered to the first of these Objections, that it lies upon the Counsel for the Evidence the King only to fhew, that this Conftruction, which they did not come have put upon the Paper, is fuch, as the Generality of Charge. Readers must take it in, according to the obvious and tt Objecti- natural Senfe of it; and if upon the hearing of the paGeneral Ac- per read the Jury are of that Opinion, they are bound ceptation of in their Confciences to find the Defendant guilty. And words. to the other, the Solicitor (b) General obferved, that if 2d objection and they could have given Evidence of exprefs Malice, this Treason. Fact would have been Treafon within the Statute of 6 Ann. c. 7. but as it is, the Charge is only for printing and pub

vant to the

clap down

tions taken.

upon the

mily.

2d, That

up to the

on answered.

(a) Sir Philip Yorke, afterwards Lord Chief Juftice of K. B. Lord Chanelior, and Earl of Hardwicke, Barons, &c. at End of Bunb. White. Lift. 167. 2 Lord Raym. 1331. Stra. 578. Whit. Lift. 139. 2 Stra. 953. Whit. Lift. 135. 2 Stra. 1971. 2 Kel. 134. Andr. 1. Atk. Rep. 1. 4 Col. Peer. Eng. 281.

(b) Sir Clement Weerg. 2 Lord Raym. 1331. Stra. 578. Whitw. Lift. 16. Barons, &c. at the End of Bunb'.

lishing

lifhing a feditious Libel, and confequently the Circumftances of Malice are entirely immaterial. The Chief Juftice accordingly agreed the Law to be fo; and the Jury found the Defendant guilty. Hillary Term 2 Geo. 2. 1729. Barnard. K. B. 304. The King v. Clerk.

an Informa

This was an Information of the fame Sort with the Against former. The Evidence against the Defendant was, that what Perfon there were two Servants of Mr. Mift, whose Business it tion for a was to put the Letters in order for Readiness to print them Libel may be brought. off, that the Defendant was one of them, and that this Work was called compofing for the Prefs; the Defendant Compofitor and the other accordingly compofed together the printing of the Press. of this Piece of Perfian Hiftory, and one took one Column of it downwards, and the other, the other of it. Upon this Evidence Serjeant Hawkins objected, that what- Objections. ever Interpretation the whole of this Paper might receive taken together, yet taken feparately according to the Shares, which these two Perfons had in it, the Part which the Defendant compofed, could by no means receive fuch a Construction, and therefore he neceffarily must be acquitted. Mr. Kettleby too took another Objection, that the Defendant was charged quod Libellum impreffit & pub- Charge not licavit & imprimi & publicari caufavit, whereas by the Evi- fupported by dence on the Part of the Crown it appeared, that the the EviCompofing was only previoufly neceffary to the preffing Compofing off, and confequently as the Defendant was only proved to not preffing have compofed, he could not be found guilty of preffing off. off, which according to the general Notion of the Word, carried with it the fame Idea as Printing, and therefore he faid, the Information had not charged the Defendant with

dence.

Publication.

Offences

a proper Fact. The Counsel for the Defendant obferved No Evifurther, that no Evidence was offered of a Publication of dence of this Libel, and therefore clearly as to that Part he ought to be acquitted. And befides, they faid, the Information Two diftin& charged two offences in diftinct and feparate Parts of it, charged in one of printing this particular Libel in hæc verba ; the other one Inforof printing a Libel generally; and therefore as to the laft mation. Charge, as no Evidence was given of two Offences, the Jury ought at least to acquit the Defendant. To the first Objection the (a) Attorney answered, that this pretended Objections Hiftory was a Thing intire, one Part had a Dependence upon the other, and therefore he that is guilty of any one Part, must be guilty of the Whole. To the fecond he Evidence, faid, he would agree, that if this was a civil Suit, an Action brought against the Defendant for printing without Au- civil Suit,

(a) Sir Philip Yorke. See fol. 4. in Notes.

aniwered.

tho' infuffi cient in a

yet fufficient in a criminal

thority, Profecution.

thority, to the Damage of a particular Perfon, the Evidence given here would not make the Defendant anfwerable; for he would have appeared to have acted merely as a Servant; and therefore as he had affifted in one Branch only of printing, and not in the Whole, he could not be fubject to fuch an Action; but the prefent Cate, he faid, was in a Matter of a criminal Nature, where an Acceffary in Part is Principal in the Whole; and therefore as the Defendant affifted in the compofing, which was a Circumstance ef fentially neceflary to there being any printing, he by that A&t evidently made himfelf concerned in the Whole; beCompofing fides, he faid too, compofing was taking a Copy of a Liis publish bel in Types and Figures, and that would make the Defendant a Publisher; for it has often been determined, that the taking of a Copy of a Libel was an Act of Publication: And this, he faid, gave an Answer to the third Objection. And to the last he obferved, that laying Informations in this Way was begun in the Lord Chief Juftice Holt's Time, and it was done out of Caution, for fear they should not fucceed in the particular Laying of the Fact. The Chief Ch. Juft. Juftice agreed with the Attorney in all but the Act of Publication; but that was merely a Circumftance of printing; Defendant and accordingly directed the Jury to acquit the Defendant acquitted of as to the Publication; but if they believed the Evidence, the Publica- to find him guilty of the Printing, and the Jury did fo. found guilty Hilary Term 3 Geo. 2. 1730. Barnard K. B. 305. The of the print- King v. Knell.

ing.

Copying a Libel publishing it. Informati

ons begun to

be laid as this, ever

fince Lord

Holt's

Time.

tion, but

ing.

CHAP. XII.

BOOKSELLERS and HAWKERS.

Book fellers T is said, that if Bookfellers or Hawkers publish or fell

or Hawkers

punishable,

if

or fell though they yet they are punishable; the public Peace being to be more regarded than a private Interest. Wood's Inft. 445. B. 3. Chap. 3.

know not

the Con

tents of the

Libel they

fell.

An Information was moved for against the Defendant, for felling and publishing a Libel against one Chambers; and it was infifted upon, for the Defendant, that she was fick, and that her Servant took the Libel into the Shop without her Knowledge.

But

answer for

But by the Court: This is no excufe, for a Mafter Mafler shall fhall anfwer for his Servant, and the Law prefumes him his Servant. to be acquainted with what his fervant does.

Mr. Juftice Fortefcue faid, that it had been ruled, that Bookfeller is the finding a Libel on a Bookfeller's Shelf was a Publi- the Publithcation of it by the Bookfeller.

er of a Libel found on his

answerable

Shop by his

his Abfence.

And Lord Chief Justice Raymond faid, it had been rul- Shelf. ed, that where a Mafter living out of Town, and his Bookfeller is Trade is carried on by his Servant, the Mafter fhall be for a Libel chargeable with his Servant's publishing a Libel in his Ab- fold in his fence. Hilary Term 10 Geo. 1724. K. B. 2 Sef. Caf. 33. Servant in pl. 38. The King v. Dod. It seems to be agreed, that not only he who publish- He who proes a Libel himself, but also he who procures another to do cures the it is guilty of the Publication; and it is held not to be ma- of a Libel, terial, whether he who difperfes a Libel knew any thing equally of the contents or Effects of it, or not, for that nothing guilty with would be more easy than to publish the most virulent Papers with the greatest Security, if the concealing the himself. Purport of them from an illiterate Publisher would make him fafe in difperfing them. 3 Bac. Abr. 497.

Publication

the Publisher

of the Libe

the Servant

And on this Foundation it hath been conftantly ruled A Libel fold of late, that the buying of a Book or Paper, containing in a Pamphlibellous Matter, in a Bookfeller's Shop, is fufficient Evi- let Shop by dence to charge the Mafter with the Publication, although of the Owit does not appear, that he knew of any fuch books being aer of the there, or what the Contents thereof were; and it will not Shop, for be prefumed that it was brought and fold there by a Stran- on his Acger, but the Mafter muft, if he fuggefts any thing this kind in Excufe, prove it. So ruled on Evidence Guildhall by Raymond Ch, Juft. Hilary Term 2 Geo. 1729. 3 Bac. Abr. 497. The King v. Nut.

his Ule and

Owner

of count, the at knowing nothing of this

2.

The Defendant was indicted for being Publisher of a treafonable Libel. But the Evidence against her was only, that fhe kept a Pamphlet Shop, and that there the Libel was fold; but no evidence was offered to prove her knowing of its being bought in or fold out; nay, fhe proved, that her Houfe where the lived was a Mile from off the Shop, and. that she had been Bed-ridden there for a long Time; fo that the Prefumption was on the other Hand, that the really knew nothing of it. Upon which, Mr. Kettleby faid, he hoped upon this Evidence that the Defendant must be acquitted; for tho' indeed the Act of a Servant may charge a Mistress in a civil Suit, it was by no means reasonable it should charge her in a criminal Profecution.

He

Libel, yet he is guilty of a Publi

cation.