CO129-454 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1919 [4-6] — Page 189

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