[criminal libel – criminal procedure]

R. v. Goodwin

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 12 January 1843

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 14 January 1843[1]

            The Queen at the suit of William Stammers Button v. William Lushington Goodwin

            The jury being called, the clerk of the court read the following informations:-

In the Supreme Court of         )

Van Diemen’s Land                )

VAN DIEMEN’S LAND (TO WIT)

            Be it remembered that Thomas Welsh Esquire Attorney-General for our Sovereign Lady the now Queen who for our said Lady the Queen prosecuteth in this behalf comes here into the Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land at Launceston in the Island of Van Diemen’s Land on the ------- day of ----- in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two and for our said Lady the Queen gives the Court here to understand and be informed that William Lushington Goodwin late of Launceston aforesaid Printer being a person of an evil and wicked mind and unlawfully and maliciously intending to injure and vilify the good name credit and reputation of William Stammers Button a good and worthy subject of our said Lady the Queen and to bring him to public scandal infamy and disgrace with force and arms on the sixteenth day of April in the fifth year of the reign of our said Lady the Queen at Launceston in Van Diemen’s Land aforesaid unlawfully and maliciously did print and publish and cause and procure to be printed and published a certain false scandalous malicious and defamatory libel of and concerning the said William Stammers Button containing the false scandalous malicious and defamatory words following of and concerning the said William Stammers Button (that is to say) “In all transactions let us honest be, and honor give to strict integrity, let bolters by their creditors be scouted, and their professions afterwards be doubted, in whatsoever clime they take their flight, let them be doomed to everlasting night, and honest men with them all business shun fearful they might again up stick and run, for Button” (meaning the said William Stammers Button) “may once more design for the same reason choose to cross the line” (meaning and intending that the said William Stammers Button was a dishonest person and had fled from his creditors to avoid the payment of his just debts) “which once be” (meaning the said William Stammers Button) “crossed God knows the reason, whether for highway robbery or treason, but true it is as William he” (meaning the said William Stammers Button) “did fly, He’s Button now” (meaning the said William Stammers Button) “though folks say ‘tis a lie, some day the truth will out if not too late, and then the Bolter” (meaning the said William Stammers Button) “will not ‘scape his fate, perhaps the hulks perhaps a halter, exhibited to public gaze this malster, newspaper man, Hypocrite and Bolter,” to the great damage scandal infamy and disgrace of the said William Stammers Button and against the piece of our said Lady the Queen her crown and dignity whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lady the Queen who for our said Lady the Queen prosecutors in this behalf for our said Lady the Queen prays the consideration of the Court herein the premises and that due process of law may be awarded against the said William Lushington Goodwin to make him answer to our said Lady the Queen touching and concerning the premise aforesaid.

                                                            (Signed) THOMAS WELSH

            To which defendant pleaded “Not Guilty.”

            Mr. Macdowell, as counsel for plaintiff, having consented to the challenge of four of the jury on the part of defendant, stated the case to the Court. He read the doggrel lines, which were considered by his client to reflect upon his reputation. He was instructed to say that his client was an honorable man, who had since his residence in this colony maintained a good repute. It was for the jury to put a construction upon the doggrel lines, which defendant having permitted to appear in his paper, was responsible for them. He then called

            Mr. Vincent Giblin, who gave it as his opinion, that the doggrel lines alleged to be libellous, referred to William Stammers Button. He had known the plaintiff about two years; he was a malster and brewer. Witness thought a bolter meant a person who had left his home or country to defraud his creditors.

            Mr. Goodwin endeavoured to elicit from Mr. Giblin the fact of Button having bolted from England to defraud the government, under a fictitious name, that of Walter William Williams, and that it was a matter of common notoriety, but was stopt by the court. His Honor the Chief Justice would not permit any question to be put to the witness, that went to prove such to be the fact.

            Mr. Macdowall called no other witnesses.

            Mr. Goodwin had not calculated even the possibility of Button being spared his appearance in the witness-box; he had depended solely upon the testimony of the plaintiff himself, for a confirmation of the facts as stated. In cases of action for libel instituted, ex officio, it is usual to put the aggrieved, or complaining party, into the witness-box, to disprove upon oath the charges made against him, which, if false, no honest man would for one second hesitate to do - an honest man, conscious of rectitude, would willingly submit himself to the cross-examination of his accuser. Mr. Button, however, dare not trust himself to a cross-examination; he took advantage of the loop-hole the law afforded him to avoid answering the questions that were prepared for him, and which he knew he could not answer satisfactorily to himself and the public, and shrunk from the witness-box. An honest man, falsely charged with crime, would say, “I am guiltless - I am falsely accused - I am ready upon my oath before God, and in open court to face my accused, and I dare him to prove me guilty. My conscious tells me I can claim, with proud honesty of feeling, the protection of the law of my country. I do not come here to flinch from enquiry into my conduct, I am here to court it!! I will not take any advantage of a law made in the dark ages of bigotry and oppression, which should, long since, have been done away, and which in the present day availeth not a man whose reputation can defy the test of manly enquiry, I come not here to avail myself of such a law; - I stand before my accuser eager and anxious for the most searching investigation of the conduct imputed to me, on the result of which let me stand or fall.” Such would be the language of an honest man falsely accused. Was it the language of Walter William Williams, alias William Stammers Button? - No, - he did not enter the witness box to give on his oath his name to the public of Launceston, notwithstanding he promised in the Examiner of the 26th of October last that a baptismal certificate, which he states is in the hands-writing of the clergyman by whom he was baptised, should be given to the Chronicle “to use for his defence.” The public looked forward to the production of the certificate as promised, to remove the general doubt of its validity, it being published in the Examiner, without date, name of place, or name of clergyman; but the baptismal certificate was not produced. Like the worthy gentlemen it is said to refer to, it was not forthcoming as promised. The public will, of course, draw a just inference. Some of the inhabitants of Launceston were present in court to hear the confessions of the plaintiff - they were disappointed. Williams, although challenged by Mr. Goodwin to enter the box as a witness in his own case, dare not do it. He preferred being seated, conscious as he must have been, that every person in court could not fail to attribute his “philosophical” firmness to its real cause.

            Mr. Macdowall generously offered Mr. Button as a witness, to give evidence as to his proprietorship of the Examiner, which service Mr. Goodwin declined accepting, His Honor having previously stated, that if Button was in the Box he would not permit him to answer questions touching his Bolting. We did not think proper to avail ourself of testimony which was immaterial, if we were to be denied the privilege as we conceive it to be, of putting a few home questions to him, which were very material.

            In this position of the case - denied the opportunity of proving from the plaintiff’s own mouth, the truth of the alleged libel, Mr. Goodwin determined on not needlessly occupying the time of the Court, and threw himself on the consideration of the jury - first however, stating that the writing complained of, was provoked by Mr. Button, who had in his paper, the Examiner of the 16th April last, the same day on which the Chronicle was published, which contained the alledged libel, written or caused to be written a gross and scandalous libel against him, Mr. Goodwin, in the same style of doggrel verse which he, Mr. Goodwin had adopted in retaliation - and that therefore Mr. Button being the aggressor, had no right to come into the Court to complain.

            His Honor summed up in a manner that must have convinced every person who heard him, that although he sat there to administer the law as it was, he was not the vindicator of dishonourable practices; and we feel assured in our own mind, that had Button been put into the witness-box and been obliged to answer such questions as would have been put to him, that His Honor would not have troubled the jury for their opinion on the case.

            The Jury returned a verdict of “Guilty”.

            Mr. Macdowell having prayed for judgment, His Honor observed to Mr. Goodwin, that there could be no doubt of the writing being libellous, but it was not of a character to call for any severe punishment. His Honor would therefore fine him £30, and to be imprisoned until it was paid.

            Mr. Goodwin paid the fine immediately.