« 上一頁繼續 »
Libel in a
house at K., which said workhouse is within the A. union for newspaper the administration of the laws for the relief of the poor. report.
2. The defendants were at the time of the committing of the grievance hereinafter mentioned, and still are, the printers and publishers of a daily newspaper called the “ M. C.," printed and published at M., and having a wide circulation, in particular in L. and C.
3. The defendants, being such printers and publishers as aforesaid, on the 30th of December, 1875, printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff and of and concerning him in his said profession of physician and surgeon, and of and concerning him in his said office of medical officer aforesaid, the words following, that is to say :-[Here follow the words of the alleged libel set out in detail with appropriate innuendos, at the end of which the claim continues] meaning thereby and imputing to the plaintiff that he had been and was guilty of gross misconduct in his profession of physician and surgeon as aforesaid, and had acted in his said profession and his said office negligently, improperly, and with great cruelty.
4. In consequence of the premises, the plaintiff has been and is greatly prejudiced and injured in his credit and reputation, and in his profession of physician and surgeon as aforesaid, and in his office of medical officer as aforesaid.
The plaintiff claims :
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants admit that the words set forth in paragraph 3 in the plaintiff's statement of claim were printed and published by them, but they deny the other allegations in that paragraph contained.
2. The defendants are public journalists, and the said words were printed and published by them as such public journalists, in a public journal bonâ fide and without malice, and for the public benefit and not otherwise, and were and are a correct, fair, impartial, and honest report and account of proceedings of public interest and concern.
3. The defendants deny each and every the allegations contained in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim.
Alternative Claim against two Defendants for Libel. 1. The plaintiff is a clergyman of the Church of England. Alternative 2. The defendants, or one or other of them, are or is the
of claim proprietors or proprietor, printers or printer, and publishers or for libel publisher of “ Gazette.”
defendants. 3. On the 13th of July, 1875, the defendants, or one or other of them, falsely and maliciously printed and published of the plaintiff in relation to his profession, the words following, that is to say—[Here follow the alleged libellous words] – meaning thereby that the plaintiff was slothful and careless in the discharge of his clerical duties, and was unfit to be a clergyman of the Church of England.
The plaintiff claims :
Statement of Defence of the Defendant M. G. 1. The defendant M. G. says that he is not the proprietor, Defence of
first defenprinter, and publisher of " Gazette,” nor has he any con
dant. nection in any capacity with the said “ Gazette.”
Denials. 2. He denies that he falsely or maliciously or at all printed and published the words set forth in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim.
Statement of Defence of the Defendant C. G. 1. The defendant C. G. admits that he is the printer and Defence Gazette."
of second publisher of the “
defendant 2. The defendant C. G. further says that the alleged libel under Lord complained of by the plaintiff in his statement of claim was
Act of contained in a public newspaper called “ Gazette,” and apology and was inserted in such newspaper without actual malice or gross into Court negligence.
3. The defendant C. G. further says that at the earliest opportunity after the commencement of this action, he inserted in such newspaper a full apology for the said libel.
4. The defendant C. G. brings into Court the sum of £10 by way of amends for the injury sustained by the plaintiff by the publication of the said libel, and says that the said sum is enough to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff in respect thereof.
Action for Publishing a Libellous Letter. Statement 1. The plaintiff carries on business as a merchant at of claim for Street, in the city of London ; and the defendant is the general showing a libellous manager of the L. & G. Bank. letter.
2. Prior to the 31st of May, 1877, the plaintiff had had considerable business transactions with one J. H., also a merchant, from which he had derived large profits, and several such transactions were then in progress between the plaintiff and the said J. H., and the said J. H. would have continued to have such transactions with the plaintiff but for the publication hereinafter referred to, and the said J. H. had offered the plaintiff to take him into his employment as manager, upon terms which would have given the plaintiff a salary of from £3000 to £4000 per annum for his services.
3. On the 31st of May, 1877, the said J. H. called upon the defendant, and the defendant then falsely and maliciously published to the said J. H. the following letter of and concerning the plaintiff.
[Here follows the alleged libellous matter.] 4. Owing to the conduct of the defendant set forth in the preceding paragraph, the said J. H. refused to have any further transactions with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff lost the profits he would otherwise have made thereby, and the said J. H. also refused to take the plaintiff into his employment, as he would otherwise have done, and the plaintiff has lost the benefit of such employment and the emoluments thereof, and has been much injured in his credit, reputation, and business, and has been otherwise damnified.
The plaintiff claims £2000 damages.
Statement of Defence. Defences- 1. The defendant does not admit that he published the said justification and
letter or any part of the same, or that he published the same privilege. falsely and maliciously as alleged, or at all.
2. The statements contained in the said letter are true in substance and in fact, according to the fair and ordinary meaning of the words used in the said letter.
3. The publication of the said letter to J. H., if made, was privileged, and was made bonâ fide and without malice. J. H. having an interest in certain business transactions in which the Statement plaintiff and the defendant's bank were concerned, made in- of defence. quiries of the defendant as to the plaintiff, and it was in answer to such inquiries that the publication, if any, of the said letter took place.
4. The defendant does not admit the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the statement of claim.
Action for Slan ler and Libel, the former in the French Language. 1. The plaintiff is a teacher of music, residing at and Statement
of claim for the defendant is also a teacher of music residing at
slander in a On the 1st of May, 1876, the defendant falsely and foreign maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, in the French language
and libel. language, the words following, that is to say—[Here follow the alleged defamatory words set out verbatim in French]—which said words as translated into the English language bear, and were understood by the persons to whom they were published to bear the meaning following, that is to say -[Here follows a translation of the words in English].
3. The defendant meant thereby and imputed that the plaintiff at the time of the speaking of the said words was and had for a long time been suffering from a contagious disease, rendering him unfit to mix in society.
4. On the 5th of May, 1876, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published in a letter addressed to one J. F., of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following, that is to say,[here set out the words in full which were in English] -meaning thereby that the plaintiff was a man of dissolute habits and profligate life, and not fit for an appointment as music master in an academy for young ladies.
The plaintiff claims :-
Action for Slander of a Man in the way of his Trade. 1. The plaintiff at the time of the grievance hereinafter Statement
of claim for mentioned was and still is a manufacturer of brushes and
slander of brooms, carrying on his business at
plaintiff in U 2
Statement 2. On or about the of —, 1877, the defendant falsely of claim for and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff in relaslander of plaintiff in tion to his said trade and business as such a trader as aforehis trade.
said, the words following, that is to say: "You have got a commission to buy for that fellow H. (meaning thereby the plaintiff), who always lets his cheques go back. He (meaning the plaintiff) can pay for nothing. In fact, he (meaning the plaintiff) never pays anybody. He (meaning the plaintiff) is sued in all directions, and has had the bailiffs in his warehouse. Indeed, he (meaning the plaintiff) never pays anybody until he (meaning the plaintiff) is so compelled, and his business will soon be shut up." The defendant thereby meaning that the plaintiff as such trader had been guilty of fraudulent and dishonest practices ; and that he was insolvent and unable to pay his just debts.
3. The said words were spoken and published in the hearing of Messi's. G. & Co., merchants, of L., and Mr. W., broker, of L. ; and by reason of the speaking and publishing of the said words in their hearing the said Messrs. G. and Mr. W. refused to sell goods to the plaintiff on credit as they otherwise would have done, and to have any dealings or transactions with the plaintiff in the way of his trade and business, and the plaintiff thereby incurred great damage and injury to his credit and otherwise.
The plaintiff claims :
Action for Slander of Plaintiff's Wife.— See Husband and
Wife, pp. 345—350, post.
and Wife, p. 355, post.
Action for Slander of Title (a). for slander
1. The plaintiffs were at the time hereinafter mentioned and to title.
still are vocalists, and had been and were engaged to sing at the Essentials (a) In the case of an action for slander of title the plaintiff must of an action show that the words complained of were written or spoken (it does not for slander matter which) (Malachy y. Soper, 3 N. C. 371) maliciously, that they were of title.
false, and that actual damage has ensued to something which is the plaintiff's property. (See Wren v. Wild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730, 737 ; Hart v. Wall, 46 L. J. 227.) As to publishing without justification an untrue statement disparaging a man's goods, and thereby causing him special damage, see West Counties Manure Co. v. Lares Chemical Manure Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 218.