A most formidable prospect for journalists is raised by a
hearing in the Queen's Bench in Banco yesterday week, at which Mr. -Justice Hannen, Mr. Justice Mellor, and Mr. Justice Lush were present, and it was decided by the two former against the opinion of the latter that there is a case to go to a jury whether or not it is libellous to describe any particular trado-advertisernent,—such as Messrs. Jenner and Knevystub's advertisement of their travel- ling bag as "the bag of bags," which was the case in point,—as ." silly and slangy." It was maintained for Messrs. Jenner and Kuewstub that this remark (of the deceased Tomahawk's) was not a literary attack upon the advertisement, but an attack upon them through the advertisement, of which, how- ever, not a particle of proof appears to have been produced. Mr. Justice Lush truly observed that if there is any case for a jury here, there will certainly be a case for a jury against every critic who describes the title of the last sensation novel as 'silly and slangy,'—and if the title, then still more, we suppose, the book, 'till unfavourable reviewing must practically cease. And if we may not speak, say of any of Mr. John Hardy's or Mr. Bernal 'Osborne's speeches as silly and slangy, public criticism is at an .end. Yet why should criticism on public speakers be leas hardly judged than criticism on the puffiest of all trades,—advertising ? It was a pity the Lord Chief Justice (Sir A. Cockburn) -was not sitting. Ile has as strong an opinion as Mr. Justice Lush of the importance attached by our Common Law to the public benefit or unfettered criticism.
Previous page
