weakened or impaired; and he was sure that as long as the bench of judges in England was constituted as it now was, the judges of the land would ever hold the liberty of the press to be sacred and indestructible. Let them, however, apply this doctrine, which was part and parcel of the law of England-for the liberty of the press was supported and sanctioned and made safe by the constitution of the land-to the facts of this case. It was the privilege--the undoubted privilege-and right of the proprietors of newspapers to denounce fraud if a fraud had been committed or attempted upon the public, and to warn them against such fraud. It was their privilege and right to comment freely and fearlessly upon all public events, all public questions, and all matters whatsoever of public interest; but it was not their privilege to defame the private character of any man within this realm, or to charge any individual with fraud or any other crime, unless they were prepared to establish and prove the truth of the charge in an open court of justice. Applying this law to the articles which had been published by the "Times" about the plaintiff, he asked them whether in their judgment the substance of these did come within the liberty of the press, or whether they were defamatory of the private character and injurious and fatal to Mr. Rubery's reputation. It was for them to say whether they could come to any other conclusion than that the "Times " charged the plaintiff with being one of the unworthy and dishonest parties to these atrocious frauds. The "Times" in one of its articles said Rubery was the person who eight years ago had been charged with piracy along with Harpending and others. Now, it was not his province to say whether to charge a person with being guilty of piracy was a libel or not. It was for the jury to say what was libellous and what was not, but let them consider what was meant by piracy. A pirate was a sea robber, and a man who if not guilty of murder, it must be by accident. A pirate was a man who attacked unarmed vessels which were peacefully navigating the broad seas, and if resistance was offered there was bloodshed and murder. As far as the plaintiff was concerned, according to the facts proved before them, he was no more charged with piracy than he was with arson, murder, or any other atrocious crime a man could commit. Mr. Sampson (the admitted author of the articles) had also, through his counsel, in terms charged Rubery with being a party to the original concoction of this gigantic fraud; and it was for the jury to say whether there was any justification for such an imputation.

His lordship in concluding said: The first question I shall put to you is"Were these articles in the Times' of the 18th, 20th, and 21st of December in your judgment libellous; that is to say, defamatory to the character and injurious to the reputation of the plaintiff, or is any one of them a libel, or if only one or two and not all three, which is or are libellous?" The second is"Whatever may be the charge which you hold these libels to impute-that is, whether he was an original party or that he only forbore to denounce them, or whatever it may be-looking at the great question you have before you, and upon which it was said that Rubery was an original conspirator and an original party to the purchase of these diamonds and to the salting of this mine-whatever may be the charge which you hold these libels to impute, is it, in your judgment, established and proved by the evidence that the plaintiff is guilty of the offence or offences imputed to him?" Of course if you should think it right upon the whole evidence to give a verdict for the plaintiff in relation to the one article containing the charge concerning piracy, you may do so. You may find for the plaintiff on one article and for the defendants on the other two. You may find your verdict for all three, for the plaintiff or for

the defendants; or, if you think fit, you may find for the plaintiff on one or more, and for the defendants on the rest. The way I put it is, when you have determined for yourselves what the charge is, and what the offence or offences are, do you find that the justification is established upon the evidence? If it is not established and the justification is not proved, then you will say what damages you find the plaintiff entitled to recover. Then the last question, which is quite apart and separate from the others, is this-" Was the defendant Baron Grant a party to the publication of all, or of any, of these articles, and if but one or two, and not of all, of which ?"

After consulting together for an hour and a half, the jury returned into court with their answers to the questions as follows:

1. Are the three articles in the "Times," or any of them, libellous?—Yes. 2. If libellous, is the plaintiff guilty of any of the offences imputed to him? -No.

3. If the plaintiff is not guilty, what damages is he entitled to ?-5001. Lastly. Was the defendant Baron Grant a party to the publication of any of the libels?-No.

This was in effect a verdict for the plaintiff against Sampson, with 5007. damages, and in favour of Baron Grant.

II.

THE CANADIAN OIL WORKS CASE.

ALLEGED FALSE PROSPECTUS.

CHARLTON V. HAY AND OTHERS.

THIS was an action heard in the Court of Queen's Bench before Baron Pigott, brought by Mr. Charlton against Sir John Hay, M.P., Sir Seymour Blane, Mr. McCullagh Torrens, M.P., Mr. Eastwick, ex-M.P., and Mr. Francis Francis (director of the London and County Bank), directors of the Canadian Oil Works Corporation (Limited), for alleged false representations in the prospectus of that company. Sir Henry James, Q.C., the Hon. Mr. Thesiger, Q.C., Mr. Reid, and Mr. T. W. Wheeler appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants were represented by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Watkin Williams, Q. C., Mr. Day, Q.C., Mr. Holt, Mr. English Harrison, Mr. Lanyon, and other learned counsel.

The case was opened by Sir H. James, who represented that the oil works were almost worthless, but that the defendants in spite of warning had formed a company and agreed to pay 480,000l. for the property. The plaintiff, in his examination-in-chief, said he had received a prospectus, and applied for shares, he also had bonds, altogether 140 shares and 18 bonds, for which he paid 1,5647.; subsequently, the shares fell, and at a meeting of bondholders, the directors were asked for their accounts, which were promised by the defendant Hay. A second meeting of about 90 bond and shareholders was held, at which Torrens and Francis were present, and Hay was in the chair, and it was at one of these two meetings that he first heard of Longbottom. A committee

of investigation was instituted, and the plaintiff among others was appointed on it. Circulars were sent out inviting bondholders to deposit their bonds, but few were deposited, and, finding their efforts useless, the committee presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor for winding up the company, and an order for the trustees to foreclose the mortgage of bondholders. The plaintiff also stated that Torrens was very angry at the refusal of the committee to receive the bonds. The plaintiff was then cross-examined by Mr. Day, Q.C., on the part of Sir John Hay, by the Solicitor-General, on the part of Sir Seymour Blane, and by Mr. Giffard, Q.C., on the part of Mr. Eastwick.

Mr. Francis Mowatt, in his examination by Sir Henry James, gave evidence to the effect that he was chairman of the Crédit Foncier in 1871, and that in July of that year he had an interview with Longbottom on the subject of the Canadian Oil Wells, but subsequent inquiries decided him to have nothing to do with the scheme. On seeing the prospectus of the corporation, he had consulted with his colleague Sir G. Balfour, on the subject, and a communication was addressed to Mr. Eastwick. Subsequently, at an interview with Mr. Torrens, witness told him of his interview with Longbottom, and the suspicions which he entertained, for instance, that Longbottom began by asking 180,000l., saying he ought to have 200,0007., and finally offered to take 100,0007., and added that he would be satisfied with 25,0007. in money, and the rest in long-dated bills, or any other paper witness could give him. Witness told him also that having caused inquiries to be made of Longbottom's antecedents through different agents, he had received very unfavourable accounts of them, and one correspondent said he had been several times a bankrupt. One of the letters was from an officer of rank in the Engineers. He told witness he resided in the immediate neighbourhood of the oil-wells property and knew it well by repute, and that he believed it never yielded a greater return than 5007., a year, and he doubted whether it had ever yielded that. He finished by saying either 5,000l. or 10,000l. was sufficient. One correspondent said 5,000l. and another 10,000l. Each of the three correspondents ridiculed the idea that the property yielded 800 barrels per day. One said the whole of Petrolia did not yield that per day. Witness mentioned this to Mr. Torrens and communicated to Mr. Torrens also information received from several other quarters to the same effect; for instance, that Mr. McHenry, a great authority on Canadian affairs, sent his word to have nothing to do with Longbottom and Company, because he knew that the whole district of Petrolia could be bought for less than 100,0007., which he asked for this particular property.

General Sir George Balfour, M.P., on being examined, entirely confirmed the narrative of Mr. Mowatt.

Mr. James, the auditor of the Canadian Oil Works Corporation, also gave evidence as to the worthlessness of the speculation.

Several more depositions as to the value of the oil wells were put in evidence and read. The travelling auditor of the Great Western said that on seeing the prospectus of the company he arrived at the conclusion that it was the biggest swindle he ever met with.

The answers of Sir John Hay to interrogatories put to him in another action were read by Sir Henry James. He said that in Aug. 1871 Mr. Leycester O'Byrne invited him to become chairman of the corporation, and said the capital would be raised entirely, or almost entirely so, by debentures, and that the vendors would receive a very large portion of the purchase-money in fully paid-up shares. The qualification of the directors

was to be 1,000l. in vendors' fully paid up shares, which were to be given to them by the vendors. He consented to become chairman, and signed the articles of association, for which he rendered himself liable. No promise was made by the vendors or any one on their behalf that he should receive any sum in cash. After the purchase was completed it was not convenient for him to pay the 1,000l., and in Nov. 1871, he applied to Mr. Longbottom to provide him with the amount. On Dec. 1 he received from Longbottom a cheque for 1,0007., which he believed was his own money. (Sir H. James said this cheque was the one produced, drawn by the company in favour of Henry Prince and endorsed by Longbottom.) He informed Longbottom that he should regard the sum as a loan, and repay it out of his fees as director. On Dec. 26, 1872, he instructed Mr. Gedge to repay the money with which he provided him, but Longbottom refused to take it. In Dec. 1871 Longbottom informed him that he was authorised by Prince and the vendors to offer him 4,0001. in fully paid-up shares, and he consented to receive them. Some were registered in his own name, and the others in the names of his two sons. Sir John also said that he and the other directors received a written indemnification from all liability for preliminary expenses.

Mr. McCullagh Torrens' answers to similar interrogatories were also read. He said he was informed that he should receive 5007. a year in the shape of fees. He also said he had nothing to do with the prospectus, and that forty shares were transferred to him by Prince, but he (Torrens) had not paid anything in respect of them.

A minute of the board of directors was read by Sir Henry James, relating to a cheque for 801., drawn in favour of Prince on account of the purchase money. A cancelled cheque of 58,000l. in favour of Prince was also produced. It was further shown by the learned counsel, that eight cheques amounting in all to 58,000l. were subsequently drawn in favour of Prince, but no mention of them appeared in the minutes, nor could any counterfoils be found. By another minute it was shown that several cheques were drawn for directors' fees, of which one only was drawn from the ordinary cheque book of the company. Mr. Price, the official liquidator, gave an account of the financial condition of the company. The share capital consisted of 13,600 257. shares-340,0007. 12,800 shares went to the vendors, 800 remained in the hands of the directors, and of these 749 were issued to the public, who paid 18,0201. Then 1,511 1007. bonds were taken up by the public, and they yielded 151,1007. Having entered into further details, Mr. Price said that the existing claims against the company in England and Canada amounted to about 9,000l. No money had been remitted from Canada as the result of the working of the company. He had received nothing yet.

At the conclusion of the case for prosecution, after a mass of evidence had been given showing the manner in which the company was floated, and the part taken in it by each of the defendants

The Solicitor-General spoke on behalf of Sir Seymour Blane, representing his military services, and urging the fact that he was still liable for his shares, had only received 1257. as his director's fees, and that at most he was but guilty of negligence in allowing his name to be used as a director. The prospectus, he said, was not issued till due inquiries had been made, vouchers for the quantities of oil received, and a deputation sent out to confirm these statements and, that, if the directors believed the reports returned to them, they were perfectly justified in issuing the prospectus.

Mr. Hawkins, on the part of Mr. Frederick Francis, said that his client

was a gentleman of high position, who had satisfied himself by inspection of the documents of the bona fides of the speculation, and had indeed invested 1,000l. in it, all of which he would lose if the property should turn out as ruinous as represented.

Mr. Giffard and Mr. Watkin Williams followed on behalf of Mr. Eastwick and Mr. McCullagh Torrens respectively, stating that the previous high character of their clients, and that they had gained nothing by their position as directors, that they had not connected themselves with the scheme until they had certified themselves by careful inspection of its genuineness, and that negligence only was at the most attributable to them. With regard to Mr. Torrens his counsel further alleged that he had no share in drawing up the prospectus.

Sir John Hay, examined by Mr. Holt, said that he was Vice-Admiral, a Privy Councillor, and a Member of Parliament. On August 12th, 1871, Mr. O'Beirne called upon him at the House of Commons, telling him that a very profitable company was about to be introduced, and asking him to be chairman, but defendant declined. He had known Mr. O'Beirne before. Later on Mr. O'Beirne again called upon him, and on his representing that Mr. Eastwick and Mr. Torrens had agreed to investigate the matter, defendant consented to meet them in Pall Mall at the office of Mr. Longbottom, to whom he was then for the first time introduced. Mr. Edeveaine was also there representing the proprietor of the oil wells, Prince. Various papers connected with the affair were perused by the defendant and his colleagues, and inquiries were made by them as to the character of the gentleman who vouched for Mr. Francis' report, and finally the defendant consented to act as chairman. On August 30th he signed the memorandum of association for 40 shares. Longbottom was appointed managing director, but the defendant had not the remotest idea he was in any way interested in the property.

After the meeting of Dec. 28, 1871, it was deemed desirable to send out Sir Keith Jackson, a relative of Mr. Eastwick, as financial agent. He left for Canada about the middle of January, and on Feb. 7 a telegram was received from him dated the 6th:-" Oil sold, 42,000 dols. ; oil in hand, 6,000 dols. ; cash whole, 50,000 dols.: Prince advances the difference; fuel on hand for the year; no fresh water yet; frost severe; can't work until thaw." On the 27th he telegraphed :-" Property paying handsomely." The coupons became due on March 1, and on Feb. 3 a resolution was passed to transfer 9,0001. from capital to revenue to meet the payments. Messrs. Eastwick and Longbottom were authorised to appoint Prince manager, and it was afterwards sanctioned by the board. He was authorised to expend 12,000l. in developing the work, in sinking wells, and putting up machinery, and a telegram was received on Dec. 20 from Prince stating that 28,000 dols. had been so expended. The interest on the coupons was partly paid out of the 9,000l.

The Lord Chief Justice: What did you understand by the words in the telegram of Sir Keith Jackson "paying handsomely," when it was not paying enough for the interest on the coupons?-Sir John Hay: No money was

remitted.

The Lord Chief Justice: Is that what you call " paying handsomely ?”— Sir John Hay: Our impression was that there was money there which was being expended on the works.

A vast number of documents--consisting of reports, letters, and telegrams -were put in and read. They were all more or less favourable to the undertaking, but at the same time stating the difficulties that had to be overcome.