PUBLISHING FALSE NEWS falsehoods, as they are called, whereby men in office and candidates for office, and private persons who seek to influence men in respect to their votes, are made to speak, do and intend what they never dreamed of, and their real views and purposes are perverted — falsehoods with respect to the views and purposes and declarations of men regarding public affairs — are among the highest crimes, next to treason itself, of which any persons can be guilty. Such falsehoods have wrought in our day the same mischiefs which are described by Lord Coke, only on a larger scale."1 And com menting elsewhere on "this old English doctrine" the same writer says: "Plainly enough, properly limited, it is adapted to our institutions, circumstances and needs. But it has long been practically unused. Lying, in print and with the naked tongue, to the detriment alike of individuals and the public, lying in every possible pernicious form, has been so long and with so great eclat practiced among us, and so immense would seem the scandal of requiring writers and speakers to confine themselves to the truth, that judges might hesitate to enforce the doctrine."2 In 1778, Alexander Scott was indicted at the Old Bailey, "for that he, on the 23rd of April last, unlawfully, wickedly and mal iciously, did publish false news, whereby discord, or occasion of discord, might grow between our lord the King and his people, or the great men of the realm, by pub lishing a certain printed paper containing such false news; which said printed paper is of the tenor following : ' In pursuance of His Majesty's order in council, to me directed, these are to give public notice that war with France will be proclaimed on Friday next, the 24th instant, at the palace royal, St. James, at one of the clock, of which all heralds and pursuivants at arms are to take notice, and give their attendance accord ingly. Given under my hand this 22nd 1 Bishop's Crim. Law, 4th Ed., s. 929. 2 Bishop's New Crim. Law, s. 477.
6i3
day of April, 1778. Effingham, D.M." The defendant was a bill sticker; and it appearing on the trial that he had been imposed upon, and induced to stick up the bill containing the false matter believing it to be true, whereas the bill itself was a forgery, he was acquitted. There does not seem to have been any doubt entertained that the act with which he was charged was indictable.1 Every publication is intrinsically illegal which tends to produce any public incon venience or calamity. And, from early times, it has been considered as an offense at common law to attempt, by means of false rumors, to raise the price of provisions or other necessaries of life;2 or to diminish the price of any staple commodity, to the prejudice of the dealers in general.3 And in Mich. Term, 39-40 Eliz., it was, after conference and mature deliberation, resolved by all the justices, that every practice or device, by act, conspiracy, words, or news, to enhance the price of provisions, or other merchandise, was punishable by law as being prejudicial to trade and commerce, and injurious to the public in general.4 Practices of this kind came under the notion of forestalling; which anciently com prehended, in its signification, regrating and ingrossing, and all other offenses of the like nature.5 Spreading false rumors, buy ing things in the market before the accus tomed hour, or buying and selling again the same thing in the same market, are offenses of this kind.' Also, if a person within the realm bought any merchandise in gross and sold the same again in gross, it was con sidered an offense of this nature, on the ground that the price must be thereby enhanced, as each person through whose Scott's Case, 5 New Newgate Calendar, 284. 43 Ass. pi. 38; 3 Ins., 196. 43 Ass. pi. 38. 3 Inst. 196; Bro. Ind. pi. 40; Bac. Abr. tit Forestalling. 3 Jnst. 195; Bac. Abr. tit. Forestalling (A) I Hawk. P. C., c. 80, s. i.
