Mr. Newmarch differed from their Lordships, and thought that a libel on mankind in general would lie equally as well. Suppose it were said that the inhabitants of Lower Bengal had been libelled, he apprehended that no prosecution for a libel of so general a character could take place, because no one individual could fix the imputation upon himself. On these grounds he maintained that the class must be clearly defined to whom the libel is intended to apply. There was no allegation in the indictment which described the class that could feel themselves aggrieved by the libel.
After a short consultation,
The Chief Justice proceeded to deliver the judgement of the Court, observing that the motion before the Court was in arrest of judgment, and the Court were called on to say that no indictable offence had been committed; but the Jury before whom the case was tried had found the defendant guilty upon both counts in the indictment, and they also found that the libel was published maliciously, which he understood to mean the law considered as inexcusable. The correctness of that verdict was not now the question before the Court. If it had been set up by the defence that the defendant had endeavoured to reform abuses, which in his belief existed, that would be ground for shewing that no criminal intention existed, but that question was not raised. The Jury found upon the two counts, and it was not for the Court to interfere with their province. The Chief Justice then went through each case cited by the Counsel from the authorities in detail, and showed that they bore no such interpretation in this case as was endeavoured to be put on them in support of the rule. He then proceeded to remark upon the indictment and Counsel's objection to it. Now, as regards the first count, it is contended that no libel was proved as against Mr. Brett. He thought it might be laid down that it was libellous to publish any matter intended to bring any individual or individuals into disrepute, and the question was whether that publication would convey such a meaning. Was it libellous to say that an editor received money for the purpose of espousing the cause or writing up any particular party, for that was the imputation contained in the preface, which he would read:—
"I present 'The Indigo Planting Mirror' to the indigo planters' hands; now, let every one of them, having observed his face, erase the freckle of the stain of selfishness from his forehead, and, in its stead, place on it the sandal powder of beneficence; then shall I think my labour successful, good
166
