ויי
It will not be permissible to interrogate the author on
185
the point of authorship or to question him in the box thereon
!!
1
as his answers might expose him to Criminal proceedings (Odgers
4th Edn.p.61 8) but if ne is joined as a defendant in one of the
actions it may be that the other defendants could be interro gat-
ed or asked questions on the point (see Hennessy and wright
(No.2) 24 Q.B.D. 445 (N). Gibeon v. Evans (1889) 23 Qq.B.D. 384,
Marriott v. Chamberlain 17 Q.B.D.154. odgers p.610 ("the
question must be relevant as leading up to a matter in issue
in the action" one of the questions in issue if the author is
joined or separately sued will be whether the author published
the libel if such publication is not admitted).
Dalgleish & Lowther (1899) 2 q.B. 590}.
Jones v. Richards (1886) 15 Q.B.D. 439 and see A.P.1918
Vol.1, p.513 (Libel and $1 ander action).
It is possible production of the annoymous letter might be
ordered (Odgere p.606 & 607 and cases there cited).
If it is and any of the author's handwriting is on it as
it is known to be, it would be easy to establish public ation
by him. In any case it is considered possible a subpoena duce s
tecum would lie against the papers for production of the letter
if the author was made a defendant, Again if the author were
joined it is not seen how, on the issue against him, the
publisher could refuse, in the bọx, to answer the question of
who wrote it. But if a separate action is 1 gunched against
the author it is not seen how theprinter if subpoenaed, could
refuse to answer the question of who wrote it or could refuse
to produce the letter and the card accompanying it even if the
actions were consolidated.
With reference to the expression of regret published by
the defendants, it will be seen that it is a garbled version
of the form of wi to drawal and apology which had been requested
and it is apparent from the last paragraph that far from
-13-
1