Note 101 — Chapter V

Lord Mansfield’s words were,—“I have always understood, and take it to be clearly settled, that evidence of a public sale, or public exposing to sale in the shop by the servant, or anybody in the house or shop, though there was no privity or concurrence in the master, is sufficient evidence to convict him, unless he proves the contrary, or that there was some trick or collusion.”—(“Trial of John Almon,” 8vo., London, 1770.)—The motion for the new trial was made on the 27th of June following, on the ground that the master was not liable for the acts of his servant in a criminal case, where his privity was not proved. The motion was refused. The Court then expressed an unanimous opinion that the pamphlet being bought in the shop of a common known bookseller, purporting on its title-page to be printed for him, is a sufficient primâ facie evidence of its being published by him, not indeed conclusive, because he might have contradicted it, if the facts would have borne it, by contrary evidence.—(Burrows’s Reports, vol. v. p. 2686.) This is not less liberal than the present proof of publication recognised by the courts of law; and it is generally understood that nothing short of proof of interference, if not of absolute prohibition by the bookseller would now be received. Abominable as the law of libel might be, it seems to have been correctly laid down by Lord Mansfield. Fifty years earlier Almon would have been pilloried, and probably whipped. In 1759, Mr. Beardmore, the Under Sheriff, was fined fifty shillings, and imprisoned two months, for pillorying Dr. Shebbeare moderately. (Burrows’s Reports, vol. ii. p. 752.) Almon and the Doctor seem to have been much upon a par in point of respectability.—E.