Archbishop of Tuam v Robeson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1828 |
| Date | 10 June 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 965
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 32; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 199.
archbishop of tuam v. robeson and another. June 10, 1828. [S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 32; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 199.] It is a libel to publish of a Protestant archbishop, that he attempts to convert Catholic priests by offers of money and preferment. Libel. The declaration stated that the Plaintiff, at the time of publication, was, and still ia, Archbishop of Tuam: That at the time of publication one Thomas Maguire acted as a priest of the Roman Catholic ehureh in Ireland : That the Plaintiff had acted honourably as archbishop : That the (Plaintiff never promised nor offered to Maguire, nor to any person, any (a) Burrough J, was at Chambers. 966 ARCHBISHOP OF TUAM V. ROBESON 5 BINCt. 18. sum of money as an inducement for him to cease to act as a priest of the Roman Catholic church, or to accede to become a Protestant clergyman ; nor a living of 8001. a year, nor any living [18] for such a purpose; nor did he ever offer any living, but in the due discharge of his duty as archbishop: Yet the Defendants well knowing the premises, but contriving, and maliciously intending wrongfully to injure the Plaintiff in his good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and in the respect and good opinion which he had obtained, and to bring him into public scandal and disgrace, and to cause it to be believed that the Plaintiff had misconducted himself as such archbishop as aforesaid, and had promised to the said Thomas Maguire a large sum of money and a living of 8001. a year, and that the Plaintiff had written to a Protestant clergyman to make such offer, in order to induce the said Thomas Maguire to accede to become a Protestant clergyman, did, on the 8th of November 1827, at Westminster, &c. falsely, wickedly, and maliciously, print and publish, and cause and procure to be printed and published, in a certain newspaper called the Morning Herald, a certain fahe, scandalous, and malicious libel, of and concerning the Plaintiff, and of and concerning the conduct of the Plaintiff as archbishop, and of and concerning the Plaintiff's supposed offer to the said Thomas Maguire as aforesaid, containing therein the false, scandalous, malicious, and libellous matter following, of and concerning the Plaintiff, and of and concerning the conduct of the Plaintiff as such archbishop as aforesaid, and of and concerning the Plaintiff's supposed offer to the said Thomas Maguire as aforesaid ; that is to say, " Ireland: Dublin, November 5th. The speech of the Rev. Mr. Maguire (a) at the Boscommon Catholic meeting, has excited a prodigious sensation. The second reformation did not need this last shock...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mawe v Pigott
...and LAWSON, JJ. MAWE and PIGOTT Reeves v. TemplarUNK 2 Jur. 138. Thorley v. Lord KerryENR 4 Taunt. 355. Archbishop of Tuam v. RobesonENR 5 Bing. 17. Hearne v. Stowell 12 A. & E. 719. Robinson v. JermynENR 1 Price, 11. Capel v. JonesENR 4 C. B. 267. Capel v. JonesENR 4 C. B. 259. Fray v. Fra......
-
Sarah Mary Hoare against Silverlock
...will bear out the declaration, especially after verdict, though there be an improper innuendo, or none ; Archbishop of Tuam v. Robeson (5 Bing. 17), Williams v. Gardiner (b), 1 Starkie on Slander, &c. (2d ed.), 428-430, citing Peake v. Oldham (1 Cowp. 275). " A writing may be so expressed, ......
-
The Honorable The Irish Society of London v The Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe an Another
...Carne v. NichollENR 1 Bing. N. C. 430. Doe v. WebberENR 1 Ad. & El. 740. Woolway v. RoeENR 1 Ad. & El. 114. Gully v. Bishop of ExeterENR 5 Bing. 17. Deady v. Harrison 1 Stark. N. P. C. 60. Barker v. King.ENR 2 Russ. 76. Marks v. LaheeENR 3 Bing. N. C. 418. Higham v. RidgwayENR 10 East, 109.......