[criminal libel - corruption, allegation of]

R. v. Murray

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J. and Montagu J., 25 and 29 September 1835

Source: Tasmanian, 2 October 1835[1]

The Solicitor General applied for a rule, to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Robert I. Murray, for publishing a gross, scandalous, and malicious libel, in the Tasmanian newspaper of Friday, the 18th of September. The matter complained of was as follows:

"Every public functionary is bound to do his utmost, for the protection of the public property, especially for that portion of it which comes within his own cognisance. Has the Town Surveyor done this? We could mention some instances of a rather equivocal nature. One will suffice. The individual with whom it occurred, shall speak for himself. - "I tendered to make mud boots for six men employed under the Town Surveyor, about six or eight months ago - I told the Town Surveyor, that two pounds would pay me well for them. The Town Surveyor was at this time, in my debt, and I had sent in my bill. He asked me, "Would two pounds pay me for the boots." I said "yes." He said, "I may as well put something in your pocket, as not; they have always charged me two pounds, ten shillings, and I see no reason why you should not have that sum, as well as anybody else." I thanked him kindly, and said, "if it was possible, I would make them all the better. I charged what he desired me, and I was paid the money." James Sly.

Macquarie-street, September 14th, 1835."

And was supported by affidavits of Mr. A. Murray, and Mr. James Sly.

The affidavit of Mr. Sly set forth, that he went to Mr. R. L. Murray who asked him, if a certain statement which he had received, concerning Mr. A. Murray, was correct, respecting some dealing he had had, relative to some boots, but he (Sly) finding it was not, corrected the statement, and signed it as truth.

His Honor, the Chief Justice considered, that the only question in this case was, whether the article complained of was published with a malicious intent or not. His Honor thought that Mr. R. L. Murray had done nothing more than his duty as a public writer; and, as far as he could judge from the affidavits, Mr. R. I. Murray had taken great pains to ascertain what was the real truth before he published it, by going to the very man who was most competent to question the truth. Neither could His Honor see that the publication had been made with any malicious intent.

Mr. Justice Montagu quite coincided with the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Mr. Solicitor General said, if their Honors were satisfied that his client had justified his character, he would not press the case any further.

Mr. Justice Montagu did not intend to give such an opinion until he had heard the case on both sides. Their Honors would consider it further.

Tuesday, September 29

This day the Judges gave their decision upon the above application. Their Honors were of opinion, upon the grounds stated the preceding day, that it could not be entertained.

We shall now only add, that their Honors, the Judges, only appreciated the motives which induced our whole conduct in this matter. Malice never yet, we hope and believe, formed a part of our constitution. Deep as have been the injuries we have received as the hands of Mr. A. Murray, we should scorn, maliciously, to present them.

11 December 1835

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 18 December 1835

Sitting after Term. - Dec. 11.

Murray v. Murray.

In this case, which was an action brought by Mr Alexander Murray against Mr Robert Lathorp Murray for libel, the Chief Justice discharged the jury on account of the pleas of the defendant containing matter which His Honor thought would be improper to place amongst the records of the court. These pleas did not bear the signature of any member of the profession.

Attorney-general v. Abbott & anr.

This was an action upon a bond given by Mr Edward Abbott, as security to the Government for the due performance of a meat contract. The bond was given nearly five years ago, and there appeared to be some irregularities attached to it, it having been executed by one only out of two proposed sureties, the other name having been erased from the bond. A verdict was given for the defendants.

Mason v. Lascelles.

Dec. 12 - This was an action brought by Thomas Mason, esquire, the Police Magistrate of New Norfolk, against Thomas Allen Lascelles, esquire, also a magistrate, for slander. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the first, second, and third counts. - Damages one fathering. On the second plea for the defendant; and for the plaintiff on the third plea - these were pleas of justification.

…

Mason v. Lascelles. - We are authorised to a state that it is the intention of the plaintiff to cause a motion to be on the first day of next term for a new trial in this case.

Notes

[1] Murray was the editor of the Tasmanian newspaper. C.R. Murray, ‘Robert William Felton Lathrop Murray (1777-1850)’, ADB, vol. 2, pp. 272-4 and E.M. Miller, Pressmen and Governors: Australian Editors and Writers in Early Tasmania, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1973.