HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0075 and id is 1 raw text is: REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED
in the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH. By JOHN
LEYCESTER ADOLPHUS, of the Inner Temple,
and THOMAS FLOWER ELLIS, of the Middle
Temple, Esqrs. Barristers at Law. Vol. IX. Con-
taining the Case of STOCKDALE AGAINST
HANSARD, and the Cases of Hilary Term and
Vacation, 1839. In the Second Year of VICTORIA.
During some part of the period comprised in this volume the reporters have been
favoured with the assistance of Edward Smirke, of the Middle Temple, Esquire,
Barrister-at-Law. The cases reported by Mr. Smirke are pointed out as they occur.
[1 CASE OF STOCKDALE AGAINST HANSARD, DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF
QUEEN'S BENCH, IN TRINITY TERM, IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
VICTORIA.
JOHN JOSEPH STOCKDALE against JAMES HANSARD, LUKE GRAVES HANSARD, LUKE:
JAMES HANSARD, AND LUKE HENRY HANSARD (a). 1839. It is no defence in.
law to an action for publishing a libel, that the defamatory matter is part of a
document which was, by order of the House of Commons, laid before the House,
and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House, and which was after-
wards, by orders of the House, printed and published by defendant; and that the
House of Commons heretofore resolved, declared, and adjudged that the power.
of publishing such ofits reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary
or conducive to the public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional
functions of Parliament., more especially to the Commons' House of Parliament
as the representative portion of it. On demurrer to a plea suggesting such a
defence, a Court of Law is competent to determine whether or not the House of'
Commons has such privilege as will support the plea.
[S. C. 2 P. & D. 1; 3 St. Tr. N. S. 723; 8 L. J. Q. B. 294; 3 Jur. 905. For subse-
quent proceedings, see 11 Ad. & E. 253, 297. Upheld, Case of the Sheriff of
Middlesex, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 285. Considered, Howard v. Gossett, 1845-47, 10 Q. B.
375, 411. Referred to, Wason v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 83; Henwood v.
Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 613. Considered, Bradlaugh v. Erskine, 1883, 47 L. T.
618. Commented on and approved, Bradlaugh v. Gossett, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 271.
Discussed and applied, Dillon v. Balfour, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 611.]
Case. The declaration (May 30th, 1837) stated that, before and at the time of
committing the grievance next hereinafter complained of, the said plaintiff was, and
for a long time had been, a bookseller and publisher of books, and, as such bookseller
and publisher of books, had published divers and very many scientific books, and
(a) This case, on account of its importance, has been placed out of its order, for-
the purpose of early publication.
1112](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0075&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)