 | Charles Greenstreet Addison - 1876 - 762 頁
...to the cause or matter in issue before them. " Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge, can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office "(e). But no judge of an inferior court or magistrate has any immunity for slander; and if he goes... | |
 | Charles Greenstreet Addison - 1876 - 996 頁
...to the cause or matter in issue before them. " Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge, can be put to answer- civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." (i) But no judge of an inferior court or magistrate has any immunity for slander ; and if he goes out... | |
 | Great Britain. High Court of Justice. Common Pleas Division - 1876 - 850 頁
...(I) be " words spoken in office." "Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge," says he, "can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." That was a case of indictment against a borough justice ; and Lord Mansfield, observes that, " to go... | |
 | William Blake Odgers - 1881 - 836 頁
...Hilliard, 10 Ir. C. LR 195 ; 1 LT 578.) In short, "neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office" (Per Lord Mansfield in 7?. \. Skinner, Lofft. 55.) Illustrations. Defendant, an expert in handwriting,... | |
 | 1883 - 684 頁
...for using these words, Lord Mansfield said : " Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office. If the words spoken are opprobrious or irrelevant to the case, the Court will take notice of them as... | |
 | Ceylon. Supreme Court, Henry Lorenz Wendt - 1884 - 466 頁
...perjured jury." Lord MANSFIELD there said,. " Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge, can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office." Kemp v. Neville, (5) was the leading case on the civil side of the question. Cur- adv. vult(7th November)-.... | |
 | Sydney Hastings - 1885 - 532 頁
...legal proceedings before a Court of Justice, for " neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office " (a). The object of this immunity, as stated in the judgment of the Privy Council in Hart v. Gumpach... | |
 | Francis Wharton - 1885 - 944 頁
...defamatory speeches made by them on trial.3 " Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office. If the words spoken are opprobrious or irrelevant to the case in court, the court will take notice... | |
 | 1888 - 972 頁
...observed, in Rex v. Skinner, Lofft, 56, that "neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." Some refined distinctions were subsequently ingrafted on this doctrine, but they have been s wept away,... | |
 | William Blake Odgers - 1887 - 1174 頁
...Hilliard, 10 Ir. CLR 195 ; 1 LT 578.) In short, " neither party, witness, counsel, jury or judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office" (Per Lord Mansfield in R. v. Skinner, Lofft, 56.) Illustrations. A woman was charged before a court... | |
| |
The authorities establish beyond all question this: that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge, can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office... 
