Andrew Duncan v Henry Thwaites and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 840
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 447; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 3. Observations not adopted, Usill v. Hales, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 325.
556] andrew duncan against henry thwaites and others. 1824. Declaration for a libel stated, that the plaintiff was taken before a justice to answer a charge of having assaulted A. B., and that the said charge was proceeded upon, and, in part, heard, and witnesses were examined concerning the same, of which A. B. was one, and the further examination was adjourned to a future day; that at the time of publishing the libel no bill of indictment had been preferred against the plaintiff in respect of the charge, nor any trial had, and the subject matter of the charge was undetermined, yet that defendants, intending to hinder and obstruct the course of justice, and to prevent the plaintiff from having a fair trial, maliciously published in a newspaper, on the 10th July, the following libel: " One A. D., of, &c., underwent a long examination on a charge of having indecently assaulted a female child only thirteen years old. The evidence of the child herself, and her companion, A. D.'s own cousin, displayed such a complication of disgusting indecencies, that we cannot detail it. It is right, however, that we should say that the accused denied the principal facts alleged, and that the children made some slight variation in their evidence." The same count charged the defendants with publishing another libel on the 18th July, stating that "A. D., who was charged a week ago with attempting to violate the person of a girl of thirteen, was again examined, but no further evidence was heard, and he was ordered to enter into a recognizance for 2001., and all the witnesses were bound over to prosecute." There were other counts setting out the libels, but making no reference to any proceeding before a magistrate. Plea, first, not guilty; secondly, that on, &e., at, &e., before J. H., justice, the plaintiff did undergo a long examination, &e. (repeating the libel) and that afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of July, at the public office, Bow-Street, the plaintiff was again examined, &c. (repeating the second libel). The plea then stated that the supposed libels contained no other than true, fair, just, and correct report and account of the proceedings which took place on the 8th and 15th days of July respectively, at the said public office, Bow-Street, and were published by the defendants, with no scandalous, defamatory, unworthy, or unlawful motive whatever, and that the proceedings therein reported took place publicly and openly at the police office, and the reports or accounts thereof composing the said supposed libels, were printed and published in the said newspapers as public news of such public proceedings, and with no other intent, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever: Held, upon demurrer, that this plea was bad, inasmuch as it was no justification of the publication of slanderous matter, that it contained a correct report of the proceedings which took place in the course of a preliminary inquiry before a magistrate. The third plea was, that the several matters and things in the supposed libels contained were true: Held, that this plea was bad, because it was uncertain whether it meant that the report in the newspaper was a true report of the proceedings, or that the facts mentioned in it were true; and if the latter were the meaning, then the plea was much too general. The fourth plea to the whole declaration stated, that the supposed libel was nothing more than a fair, true, and correct report of proceedings which took place publicly and openly before the justice at the public office: Held, that this- plea was bad, because it was no answer to those counts which did not allege that any proceedings had taken place before a justice. The fifth plea which was pleaded to the counts containing the libel of the 10th of July was, that the plaintiff on the 8th of July was before the justice, and underwent a long examination, as in the second plea, and upon that occasion the mother of A. C. 3 B. & C.557. DUNCAN .V. THWAITES 841 deposed as follows. (The plea then set out the depositions verbatim, and by them it appeared that the libel complained of did not contain a full, fair, and accurate report of what passed at the police office, and on that ground, it was held that this plea was clearly bad.) The sixth plea which was pleaded to the libel of the 15th of July, alleged that the plaintiff was examined at the police office, and ordered to enter into recognizances, as in the libel mentioned: Held, that this plea was good, inasmuch as the publication of the 15th of July contained no statement of the evidence, nor any comment upon the case, but merely stated the result of what the justice had thought fit to do. The seventh plea was, in substance, the same as the fifth, and held bad for the same reasons. The eighth being similar to the sixth, was held good. [S. C. 5 D. & E. 447 ; 3 L. J..K. B. 0. S. 3. Observations not adopted, Usill v. Hales, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 325.] Declaration stated that plaintiff was a person of good fame, and that he had not been guilty, or until the time of the committing of the said several [557] grievances by the defendants as thereinafter mentioned, been suspected to have been guilty of indecently assaulting female children, or of attempting to violate the persons of female children, or of attempting feloniously to ravish and carnally know any female against her will, or any other such crime; and that*the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the said several grievances by the several defendants as thereinafter mentioned, was and still is a solicitor of the High Court of Chancery. By means of which said several premises the plaintiff had not only obtained the good opinion, &e. but also, in the way of his aforesaid profession, was honestly acquiring -great gains, &e., to wit, at, &c. And that before the printing and publishing the respective false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libels in this first count, to wit, on the 8th day of July 1823, to wit, at, &c. the plaintiff was taken and brought before Thomas Halls, Esq., being then and there one of the justices of our lord the present King for Westminster and Middlesex, to answer a charge, complaint, and accusation against the plaintiff, for having assaulted Ann Chandler, and behaved in an indecent manner towards her; and the plaintiff being so taken and brought before the said justice, the said charge was, to wit, on the 8th day of July in the year aforesaid, to wit, at, &c. proceeded upon, and in part heard and examined into before the said justice, and certain witnesses were heard and examined concerning the said charge, of which said witnesses so heard and examined the said Ann Chandler was one, and the further inquiry and ex-[558]-amination concerning the said charge was adjourned by the said justice to a future day ; * but at the time of printing and publishing the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel in this count mentioned, no bill of indictment had been preferred against the plaintiff for or in respect of the said charge, nor had any trial of the plaintiff by a jury of the country been had or taken place for or in respect of the said charge, and the subject-matter of the said charge was then undecided and undetermined, to wit, at, &c.; yet the defendants well knowing the premises, but contriving and intending wrongfully unlawfully, and maliciously to hinder and obstruct the due course and proceedings of the administration of law and justice, and to hinder and prevent the plaintiff from having a fair and impartial trial in respect of the said charge, and to influence, inflame, and prejudice the minds of the liege subjects of our said lord the King against the plaintiff, and to make it be believed that he, the plaintiff, had been, and was guilty of having indecently assaulted a female child, and to injure the plaintiff in his aforesaid good name, fame, and credit, and also in his said profession and business of a solicitor, and to subject him to the pains and punishment to which persons, who are guilty of indecently assaulting females, are liable by the laws of this kingdom, and to vex, harass, oppress, impoverish, and ruin him, the plaintiff, heretofore, and before any bill of indictment was preferred against the plaintiff for the said supposed offence, and before any trial of the plaintiff was had by a jury of the country for the said supposed offence, and whilst the subject-matter of the said charge was undecided and undetermined,* to wit, on the 10th day of July 1823, to wit, at, &c. unlawfully, wrongfully, maliciously, [559] and injuriously did print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, in a certain newspaper called the Morning Herald, a certain scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said charge, K. B. xxxvi.-27* 842 DUNCAN V. THWAITES 3 B. & C. 560. and of and concerning the said proceeding upon, and in part hearing, investigating, and examining of the said charge before the said justice, containing therein divers scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matters and things of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said charge, and of and concerning the said proceeding before, and in part hearing, investigating, and examining the said charge before the said justice, according to the tenor and effect following: that is to say, " One Mr. Andrew Duncan of New Inn, (meaning the said plaintiff,) underwent a long examination on a charge of having indecently assaulted a female child of only thirteen years old, (meaning the said Ann Chandler,) the evidence of the child herself, (meaning the said Ann Chandler,) and her companion Mr. Duncan's (meaning the said plaintiff's) own cousin of the same age...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hearts of Oak Assurance Company Ltd v Attorney General
- R v Macfarlane; ex parte O'flanagan and O'kelly
-
Kane v Mulvany
...& Alc. 128. Hoare v. SilverlockENR 9 C. B. 20. Saunders v. MillsENR 6 Bing. 213. Lewis v. LevyENR E. B. & E. 537. Duncan v. ThwaitesENR 3 b. & C. 556. Rex v. CreeveyENR 1 M. & S. 273. Delegal v. HighleyENR 3 Bing. N. C. 950. Helsham v. BlackwoodENR 11 C. B. 111. Morrow v. Mƒ€â„......
-
Abrahams v The Gleaner Company Ltd et Al
...a libel because it was received from a reliable source, could never amount to justification: see Donovan v. Thwaites [1824] 3 B.C. 556 or 107 E R 840 and McPherson v. Daniels [1829] 10 B. C. 263 or 109 E R 448. Although the request was for further and better particulars, consideration ought......