296 
operate in another; it might be anfwered, 
that though to fome purpofes oy did 
not, yet to all, civil purpofes they did, 
when fuch purpofes were neither repug- 
nant tothe law cf the particular ftate, nor 
to the general law of nations: and it was 
on wife principles that foreign ftates ac- 
Knowledged, and aé&ted according to the 
different civil relations which fubfifted 
between men in their cwn country. If, 
then, there were no law of the particular 
ftate, nor any law of nations which for- 
bade the operation of the Englith bank- 
yupt laws on the perfonal property of an 
Engitlh fab: eét, wherever it was found, 
Phere Wk nothing to reftrict the compre- 
henfive words of the flatutes 13 El. and 
1 j.1, but an tmplied power in a foreign 
country, to declare that an Enelifh fub- 
ject becoming baukrupi, fhoul¢e notwith- 
ftanding continue to be invefted with all 
his rights, and inthe enjoyment of all 
property, in defiance of thofe laws to 
which he owed fuomifion. But fuch a 
power could not be affumed by any foreign 
flate, nor ought this country to make, to 
any, fo imporiant a furrender. 
Proo? or DEBTS UNDER A Com- 
MISSION OF BANKRUPTCY. 
One Ralph had drawn a promiffory 
mote in favour of one Barnard or his or- 
der; Barnard negociated the note, which 
was difhonoured by Raloh, the drawer, 
when it became due; Ralph afterwards 
became bankrupt, and a commiffion was 
iffued againft him; Barnard then paid 
the note to the holder, and offered to 
prove it as a debt under the commiffion, 
about. the end of January lalt—The 
commiflioners, on the authority of the 
cafe of Brooks v. Rogeis, ,in Heary 
“Blackftone’s Rep. Com. Pleas, 640, and 
of the cafe of Howis v. Wiggin, 4 Term 
Rep. 714, refufed to admit it.— We 
mention this cafe, becaufe we think it 
probable, from the importance of the 
queftion to the mercantile intereft, it may 
probably be the fubject of difcuffion in a 
fuperior court. 
Rrieur OF THE Eprtrors of News- 
PAPERS TO PUBLISH THE Pro- 
CEEDINGS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE. 
Some time ago, an application was made 
to the Court of King’s Bench, for an in- 
formation’ againit a magviltrate of the 
name of Curry. —The afadaviton which 
this application ‘was founded, contained 
matter of an offenfive nature to Mr. Cur- 
ry.—An account of what poe in Court 
en ‘the occafion was publithed in the 
s: 
New Dedifons in Lato. 
ify) 
Times: Mr. Curry, fuppofing this ae- 
count to be a libel againft him, brought 
an action, in the Common Pleas, again 
Mr. Walter, the editor abd proprietor 
of the paper.—The caufe having been 
brought before ‘a jury, and both parties 
having gone through their cafe, Chief 
Jufice Eyre fummed up to the fellowing 
effec. —“ 1 take the queftion, faid he, 
to be reduced to. this : Whether there 
has been a publicatioa of libellous mat-. 
ter which can be made the fubjeét of an 
aétion? To make i the fubjeét of an 
action, the publication muft be m itfelf 
unlawful. This maiter certainiy imputes, 
in a general view, feandal tothe party ; 
but the publication of what paffed in the 
Court of King’s Bench, in a judicial caufe, 
can never in itfelf be confidered as an 
unlawful publication which ¢an bear an 
action. Let us go one ftep farther, and 
fuppofe thar any man were to write the 
tranfactions of the 
of that day, whi th wet ‘ld 
account oF this motion: |on the fame 
principle that it was pot an uclawful 
publication in the’ Court of King’s Bench, 
T think it muft be faid, that fuch a writ- 
ten account would not be an unlawful 
publication, becaufe this motion in the 
Court of King’s Bench, was what all the 
world did or “might hear and know; and 
therefore 1 imagine a reprefentation of 
it in writing could hardly be deemed an 
unlawful publication; a more general 
reprefentation of it ina newpaper is but 
carrying it one flep farther: and as at 
prefent advifed, it appears to me on that 
principle, that a true reprefentation 
in a newfpaper of that which has pafied 
in a court of juftice, cannot be deemed an 
unlawful publication; and I think that 
will go to the ground of this aétion. But 
for the ‘fake of a fubjeét touched on by 
the counfel on both fides (how far a ma- 
licious intention is neceflary to fupport 
an action for a libel?) I will go one fep 
farther; I have faid, if a true reprefen- 
tation of what paffed in a court of juflice 
be made in a newpaper, it will hardly 
be confidered as an unlawful publication. 
But let thofe who undertake to inform 
the public of what paffes in courts of 
juitice, beware of mifreprefentation. For 
if, in order to gratify the curiofity and 
avidity of the public, they will load their 
papers with accounts which they colleét 
from courts of juftice; if they will write 
curiouily, if they will ftate, as matters 
of faét, what was only ftated hypotheti- 
cally, or ftate mere than really did pafs 
in court, I am of opinion the publica- 
TiOR 
Snelaee arr 
