Discussions of the law of libels as at present received, in which its authenticity is examined; with incidental observations on the legal effects of precedent and authority.

Mode of access: Internet.

Acusacion pronunciada ante el Tribunal de jurados de Lima por el doctor Don Juan Ascencio contra el "Alcance al Mercurio peruano"

In the "Alcance al Mercurio peruano," Lima, 1833, Rodríguez made a violent attack on General O'Higgins, who at once instituted suit for libel. The "Acusacion," an elaborate defence of O'Higgins, is chiefly a compilation of documents relating to his revolutionary career, ostensibly by Ascencio, but in reality prepared by José Joaquín de Mora. cf. Prólogo, t. 12; also, Figueroa, Dicc. biog. de estranjeros en Chile, 1900, p. 154, where the name Ascencio is asserted to be a pseudonym.

Report of a trial : Miles Farmer, versus Dr. David Humphreys, Storer, commenced in the Court of common pleas, April term, 1830, from which it was appealed to the Supreme judicial court, and by consent of parties, referred to referees, relative to the transactions between Miss Eliza Dolph and George Washington Adams /

Action for libel.

Report of the case of Timothy Upham against Hill & Barton, publishers of the New-Hampshire patriot, for alleged libels, at the Court of common pleas, Rockingham county, March and October terms, 1830.

Mode of access: Internet.

Gifford's Baviad, and Maeviad: Pasquin v. Faulder: Epistle to Peter Pindar : to which is prefixed the author's Memoir of his own life. Byron's English bards and Scotch reviewers.

"Proceedings on the trial of Robert Faulder, bookseller (one of forty against whom actions were brought for selling the Baviad) for publishing a libel on John William, alias Anthony Pasquin, esq.": p.[91]-128.

Detraction displayed /

Mode of access: Internet.

Report of the case John Dorrance against Arthur Fenner, tried at the December term, of the Court of common pleas, in the county of Providence, A.D. 1801; to which are added the proceedings in the case Arthur Fenner vs. John Dorrance.

Mode of access: Internet.

Speeches on social and political subjects with historical introductions.

I. Military flogging. Queen Carolina. Libel on the Durham clergy. Army estimates. Holy alliance. Education. Law in Ireland. Imprisonment for debt. Bedchamber question. Wellington Speeches.--II. Commerce and manufactures. Liverpool election. Liverpool Mechanics'institute. The slave trade. Case of Rev. John Smith. Negro slavery. The slave trade. Emancipation of negro apprentices. Eastern slave trade. Present state of the law. Local courts. Parliamentary reform. Poor laws.

Bridge-street banditti, versus the press : report of the trial of Mary-Anne Carlile, for publishing A New-year's address to the reformers of Great Britain written by Richard Carlile; at the instance of the Constitutional Association, before Mr. Justice Best, and a special jury at the Court of King's Bench, Guildhall, London, July 24, 1821. With the nobel and effectual speech of Mr. Cooper, in defence, at large.

In: The Trials with the defences at large of Mrs. Jane Carlile. London : R. Carlile, 1825.

Miscellanies. Consisting chiefly of original pieces in prose and verse.

Cf. Teerink, H. A bibliography of ... Jonathan Swift. The Hague, 1937, p. 27.

Recruitment, Selection and Retention of Managers In the Hotel and Restaurant Industry

The recruitment, selection, and retention of competent, reliable, and motivated managers has been the cornerstone of any successful organization. This is generally a complex assignment due to the subjectivity involved in determining what traits are needed to make a good manager. In order to determine the status of the hospitality industry with regard to managerial concerns, leaders in the hotel and restaurant industry were surveyed on these issues.

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

Commentary on the Elizabethan Injunctions 1559

Royal Proclamation setting out the manner in which the Elizabethan Church was to be reformed and governed. Injunction 51 of this Proclamation continued in the tradition of Henry VIII's 1538 Proclamation in providing the legal foundation for a system of pre-publication licensing in Elizabethan England.
The commentary describes how, in accordance with the Injunctions, the licensing and censorship of the press was to be carried out, not by the Stationers' Company, but by the Privy Council and Elizabeth's newly established Ecclesiastical Commission (the High Commission). It also details how Elizabeth also continued to rely upon the sporadic use of statutory measures and royal proclamations to respond to seditious or heretical texts. Moreover, it suggests that, in practice, the extent to which the Elizabethan press was subject to regulatory control was much less draconian than has usually been suggested.

Commentary on the Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers 1643

A petition from the Company of Stationers to Parliament to introduce some form of legislative regulation of the press. The petition is significant in revealing the extent to which the Stationers depended upon the state to support the regulation of the book trade, as well as the nature of the various public and private interest arguments upon which they sought to base their claim. The commentary articulates the various arguments presented by the Stationers within their petition. The benefits of the legal regulation they suggested concerned not only the censorship and suppression of seditious and heretical texts, but also facilitated the advancement of learning and knowledge and the flourishing of the printing industry itself. In addition, the petition presents the figure of the ‘author' as reliant upon the benefit of his work, and that the ‘production of the Brain' was to be regarded as equivalent to any other commodity or chattel.

La caridad de la lengua: discurso pronunciado por el doctor Adolfo Leon Gomez en la Sesión Solemne de la Sociedad de San Vicente de Paúl celebrada el 25 de julio de 1897

25 p.