MR. SHERIDAN’S ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF DALY AGAINST MAGEE.
It may be necessary just to mention, for the Information of those not of the Profession of the Law, That
A JUDGE’s FIAT is a Warrant or Authority to the Officer of the Court, to issue a Writ marked in such Sum as the Fiat directs, on which Writ the Defendant is arrested, and must either find Bail to the Amount of such Sum or remain in Prison.
SPECIAL BAIL is Bail by Sureties to the amount of a certain Sum.
COMMON BAIL is only an Appearance to the Action, by Attorney, without any Security.
IN THE KING’S BENCH. MICHAELMAS TERM, 30TH GEO. 3.
DALY AGAINST MAGEE.
MR. JOHN MAGEE being in confinement under a Writ, marked for the sum of 4000l. at the suit of the Plaintiff for defamation, by Authority of A FIAT for that purpose, granted by the Lord Chief Justice, caused a notice of the following purport to be served on the Plaintiff’s Attorney.
SIR,
COUNSEL on behalf of the Defendant will move the Court the first opportunity, to set aside the order made in this cause, on the 27th day of June last, whereby it was ordered, that the Defendant should give SPECIAL BAIL in this cause, to the amount of the sum marked at the foot of the Writ of Capias ad respondendum, which issued in this cause; and that the Defendant’s COMMON APPEARANCE may be taken, and stand without holding him to SPECIAL BAIL. But if the Court should not be pleased to grant such motion, Counsel will then move the Court to vary the said order, and that the sum for which the said writ was marked, and the Defendant thereby required to find Bail to such amount, may be REDUCED from 4000l. to 500l. and the notice concludes in such case with a tender of Bail to the amount of the last mentioned sum.
N.B. Similar Notices were served in the case of Brennan against Magee, Tracy against Magee, and Higgins against Magee, who had severally obtained Fiats on the ground of DEFAMATION.
MR. SHERIDAN.
MY LORDS,
I am in this case Counsel for Mr. John Magee, the alledged Proprietor of a News Paper, called, The Dublin Evening Post; and I could wish that the notice on his behalf, and on which I move, had not a double aspect; I could wish that it had been confined to his claim of right, and not extended to an application for favor.
When we move, that a common appearance may be taken, without holding him to Special Bail, a great question of constitutional and public importance is involved in the subject; but when we apply to reduce the sum, the application appears like an appeal to the discretion of the Court. My duty to my client, obliges me to submit my observations in each point of view, though I should rather argue it in the abstract, for another reason, I might thereby avoid the strange stuff and material which the Plaintiff has introduced as merits into his affidavit, and I might thereby avoid (to use a dramatic quotation in a case partly theatrical) that stile of speech
“which though it may make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of one of whom, out-weighs, in my mind, a whole theatre of others.”
My Lords, I am in this case, with due deference, to contend, that the learned Judge was not warranted by law in issuing his Fiat for any sum; for that in this case common bail, which is no more than an appearance for the party, and properly speaking no bail at all, is all that the law requires; but if your Lordships shall be of opinion that the learned Judge was authorised by law in issuing such Fiat, holding the Defendant to 4000l. bail, then I am to submit to your Lordships, that you are bound in conscience to reduce the sum, because you are bound, and it is the true spirit of the law, to hold him to no greater bail, than in your conscience you shall think the Plaintiff can recover: and here my Lords it is necessary to call your attention to the affidavit of the Plaintiff; it is his case, and therefore I presume, put in the strongest and best manner that the nature of that case would allow; it is the ground upon which a Judge’s Fiat for 4000l. issued; and there never was an affidavit containing the grievance of the party complaining, more weak, and more defective: THERE IS NOT THROUGHOUT THIS AFFIDAVIT A SINGLE PER QUOD. The alleged Libel is libellous only by forced construction, by violent interpretation of an apparently unmeaning poem: the damages in amount are so far from approaching to any degree of certainty, that it is rather obvious, that none were actually sustained: it hints at damages which may be, not which are suffered; and such damages are imaginary: they are poetic; they are in the fancy; the conception of the party interested; of him who seeks redress in damages.
Mr. Richard Daly stiles himself, in this, his affidavit, Manager of the Theatre Royal in the City of Dublin. He states that the Defendant, Mr. John Magee, is (as he believes) Printer and Publisher of a certain News Paper, called The Dublin Evening Post, in which Paper he, John Magee, caused to be published a defamatory Poem of the tenor in the Affidavit.
I should be sorry to feel myself under any necessity to recite this Poem to the Court; it is in truth a very strange composition, but may have its merit with those who understand it; but as it is the cause of a Fiat, for 4000l. and as it contains, or rather is itself, the offence for which my client is in duress, until he shall procure bail to that amount; I have selected and shall faithfully state such passages or parts of this poem, as by possibility may be deemed libellous.
“The Gamblers retired and Roscius alone.” —
I am free to admit that Mr. Daly, being Manager of the Theatre, may be the Roscius intended by the Poet, but this concession is somewhat unnecessary, as Mr. Daly in his Affidavit, swears that he is the person so described, or in other words that he is ROSCIUS. — How far this may be a Libel on Roscius deceased, on Roscius the companion of Cicero, the name at least will scarcely be deemed a Libel on Roscius the companion of Higgins.
Roscius laments:
“That humble Actresses will no longer obedient bend:”
That,
“Francisco now delights the admiring throng.”
He then proceeds to kill himself,
“The tragic tin bent harmless on his breast.”
Then Cupid arrives, to whom Roscius says,
“Does some lady court me to her arms,
“And buy with brilliant gold my manly charms.”
Cupid replies,
“There live, he said, some men of fame well known,
“For punctual dealing, and to candour prone:
“— the Wights have money;
“Honesty against cunning has no force,
“— we’ll fleece the villains.
Here a Judge is to conceive, and a jury hereafter are to conceive, that the Lottery-Office Keepers are understood, who sometime ago were so successfully, and so surprisingly hit. I am endeavouring to give to this silly poem all the wicked effect that conjecture can admit:
“I know the wily plot RICARDO cry’d,
“The DOCTOR in those schemes is fully try’d:
“The DOCTOR sails to the Cambrian shore,
“Then straight to the enchanted fane, —
“— the priests the cabalistic numbers cry,
“The Doctor ties them round a pigeon’s neck,
“— who flies,
“And on Francisco’s portal plumes his wings.”
These are the criminal extracts from the alledged Libel, a poem full of nonsense, ribaldry, and bombast, not to be matched in a Mock Tragedy, truly farcical, were it not that the sum of 4000l. has changed the performance to a Tragi-Comedy.
For the publication of this poem the defendant has been arrested under a writ issued by authority of a Fiat, and marked for 4000l.
My Lords, there have been of late, and I lament it, many bold, impudent, plain, and indefensible Libels; why are the weakest selected to disgrace the records of the Court, and to bring contempt upon the Justice of the country. — And now, my Lords, let me call your attention to what ought to be the material part of an affidavit, to warrant a Fiat in any case; to that part which relates to the damage sustained. In this case the single instance in which the Plaintiff endeavours to shew any speci
al damage, HE FAILS IN THE ATTEMPT, and the fair inference, from his own words, is, that he has suffered little, if any.
After swearing that he had expended considerable sums, in the embellishment of the Theatre Royal, and that he has hitherto supported a good repute and credit; he proceeds, and states in his affidavit
“that by the false and scandalous publications concerning him, he has already experienced their injurious tendency, as a very eminent performer, whom he had retained in Great Britain to act at his Theatre in this City, did, from the false and scandalous publications against him, express a doubt of his credit and punctuality, and that therefore a large and considerable sum must be paid in advance; and if it had not been for the interference of some friends, he would have been deprived of the advantage of such performer.”
Now, what is the inference here? — he advanced nothing, and the actress came and fulfilled her engagement: — take it, that he did advance — how much — and where is the magnitude of the injury, in advancing to a performer a sum, on account, if the manager ever intended to pay? and this is the only statement of an injury actually sustained.
The use of indefinite words in an affidavit, may be sometimes very convenient, but when injury is to be redressed in damages, and the party held to bail, the security should be proportioned to the probable redress; and the law requires some measure, whereby such security may be limited and not extended.
The Plaintiff in this case feeling, perhaps, that a Fiat for 4000l. on the ground he has stated, and which I have followed, would be as ridiculous as it is outrageous, adds, that he has children, among whom are sour growing-up daughters, who, in their future prospects in life, may receive considerable injury; and he then swears, that he has good reason to be convinced he has suffered damages to the amount of FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS and upwards — how? — by an advance to a performer, and the injuries his family or himself may hereafter suffer. See, my Lords, the danger that might arise from any man carving the measure of his own redress, in estimating the value of the injury he has sustained; that which is but ideal will become real, and he will tell you he has good reason to be convinced: and I beseech your Lordships attention to this, because it illustrates the doctrine of the law (which I shall submit to you) with respect to bail in actions of defamation.
The Plaintiff concludes his affidavit in stating, that John Magee (the Defendant) gives out that he is a man of very considerable property, as well in money as in several News Papers. Why this is introduced I cannot discover, it is introduced as true, and if true, it is a reason for a common appearance, because the Plaintiff himself alledges a sufficient responsibility in the Defendant whom he sues.
The Defendant, John Magee, has made an affidavit in aid of the present application, in which he swears, that a writ issued in or as of last Trinity Term, to the Sheriffs of the City of Dublin, marked for the sum of 4000l. under authority of a Fiat granted by the Lord Chief Justice, and founded on an affidavit of Richard Daly the Plaintiff; that upon such writ he was arrested in June last; that in consequence of a number of vexatious suits and prosecutions against him, and in consequence of the proceedings in this cause, and from the reiterated abuse he has received in the Freeman’s Journal, he is extremely injured in his credit, insomuch, that though he has used every effort in his power, he cannot now procure bail in this cause for the amount of the sum marked at the foot of said writ, or to any larger amount than 500l. and saith, he verily believes, that the Plaintiff hath not suffered damage in this cause to any amount whatsoever.
Your Lordships have now before you the facts or merits of the case, but I trust your Lordships will decide on a great question of public and of constitutional importance, without any reference to the particular circumstances of the present case; I reject them as unnecessary, save only to the second part of the application, the reducement of the bail, which will also become unnecessary, if your Lordships shall be of opinion, that the Defendant is not bound by law to give any security whatever.
Then, my Lords, I with confidence assert, that a common appearance is all the law requires in actions of defamation, and to compel any security to any amount is an extortion on the subject, and illegal.
It is pleasing to observe in what great esteem the law holds personal freedom, justly considering the general liberty of the subject, as dependant on that of the individual; and so tender has the law been of this liberty, that no man could be deprived of his personal freedom, unless for some criminal, flagrant offence, injurious to the government under which he lived, or for some tortius act, committed with force, and consequently in breach of the peace, which his allegiance and duty required him to keep and preserve. It is thus well expressed in Crompton’s admirable introduction to a late very excellent compilation.
I grant that the legal requisition of bail, properly called Special Bail, is, and has been, for many years less confined; but then, it has been extended from necessity, and upon principle; as in DEBT, — what is the rule of law — if the debt absolutely amounts to a sum certain, then the debtor may be held to special bail; but where the demand is not absolute but uncertain, and sounds in damages — NOT SO: — And the principle, is; — the Plaintiff shall not be the judge of the injury he cannot ascertain, because it would make the Defendant the victim of the Plaintiff’s conception.
A Judge indeed may in several cases grant a Fiat, to hold a party to special bail, but in every case, it can only be where the demand is certain as IN DEBT, or where the injury is so outrageous, that damages must necessarily have been suffered; there the Judge has some measure, some guide; but even there he is bound to be moderate; for in the language of the Bill of Rights
“excessive bail ought not to be required.”
And here, my Lords, I think I take the doctrine in its utmost latitude: In cases of DEFAMATION or SLANDER (save only two exceptions which I shall mention,) a Judge is not warranted to grant a Fiat, for the Defendant shall be held only to common bail. As to SPECIAL BAIL, cases of defamation are excepted in every authority, from the oldest down to Crompton’s late Digest on the subject.
The first mention of Special Bail in slander was in the reign of Charles II. and that only in the case of slandering the title of lands; previous to that time, special bail was required in no case of personal slander: Afterwards special bail was extended to Scandalum Magnatum, and no further; so that the two exceptions evidently support the doctrine.
In Crompton 29, title BAIL, “in trespass, assault, battery, conspiracy, false imprisonment, there shall be common bail only, unless on a motion or order made by the Court or a Judge: your Lordships will observe, that this saving of motion, or order, applies only to such actions, in which, in the first instance, common bail is all the law requires; and you will observe what follows:
“IN SLANDER common bail only, unless in slander of title, and then common or special in the discretion of the Court.”
This is laid down as the law in Michaelmas 1654: and the authority adds, as the practice after that period,
“or unless spoken of a person of quality.”
This complimentary concession was introduced, perhaps, considering peers as the hereditary legislators of the realm, the king’s hereditary counsellors, and forming the Court of ultimate appeal and final jurisdiction; the welfare of the empire depending, in a degree, on their good name and reputation. So in Ray. 74 — Earl of Stampford against Goodall,
“in scandalum magnatum, the Plaintiff may have special bail on motion and order.”
Lord Chief Baron Comyn in his Digest Vol. I. Fol. 507, enumerates the cases where special bail, may be required; where the debt or damage in an action of debt, detinue, trespass, action upon the case (except in slander) amounts to 20l. SPECIAL BAIL, so where the damages are uncertain, the Judges in their discretion may grant special bail, as in battery, if it appears to be outrageous, in conspiracy, false imprisonment — in slander of title, or, scandalum magnatum. There in slander special bail is confined to the two instances; in the cases where sp
ecial bail is allowed of right, it is founded on the certainty of the injury, where it arises from discretion, it is measured by the enormity of the offence.
In 1 Blackstone 192, Smith against Frazer. — In trespass and assault, the Plaintiff made affidavit before Forster Justice, to hold the Defendant to bail; on the flagrant circumstances of which he directed 200l. bail to be given.
My Lords, there is not any distinction taken with respect to bail, between slander written and uttered; between defamation by libel or parole. — there is no variance, as to the doctrine to be found in the books, and the principle cannot be affected by the nature or class of the DEFAMATION.
1 Siderfin, 183, Chetwin against Skinner: it is there laid down,
“in action sur le case pur parole ou outrement, NUL SPE BAIL.”
I call upon gentlemen to shew any distinction taken in any authority, between slander written and SLANDER spoken, with respect to the doctrine of bail, I know there are distinctions between libel and slander spoken; I know one has justly a greater degree of criminality annexed to it, than the other: but with regard to bail, I say, DEFAMATION is the general head, including every species of slander, written, painted, engraved, spoken, ou outrement, or otherwise.
My Lords, so tenacious is the law of personal liberty, and so tender have Judges been with regard to it, that even in cases where the law recognised, and allowed special bail, where even the ground of the application seemed fair and reasonable, Courts have refused to hold the subject to special bail, because the case might not ultimately warrant it.
In 2 Strange, 1157, Heathcot against Goslin. — The affidavit to hold to bail was, that the Defendant borrowed 2000l. of the Plaintiff on bottomree, which money is now due and owing to this Deponent, by virtue of the said bond, as thereby may appear — Objected, that this was no oath of the debt; for suppose every penny is paid, and a separate receipt taken, yet upon the face of the bond the whole will appear due, et per curiam; it is not sufficient; the Plaintiff would have made a supplemental affidavit, but the court refused to receive it; for the act of parliament requires a full oath, previous to the issuing the process, that Defendants may not be harassed; and therefore in this case the Defendant was discharged upon common bail.
Delphi Complete Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan Page 87
