Bracegirdle v Bailey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1859 |
| Date | 25 March 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 842
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Applied, Scott v Sampson, 1882, 8 Q B D 491 Referred to, Mangena v Wright, [1909] 2 J, B 971
842 BRACEGIRDLE V. BAILEY 1 F. & F. 537. Liverpool Spring Assizes, co-ram Byles, J. March 25th, 1859, bracegirdle v. bailey (In an action for libel where there is no plea of justification, questions cannot be asked tending to show the plaintiff's previous bad character in mitigation of damages Where a witness has said nothing in examination in chief he cannot be cross-examined to discredit him ) [Applied, Scott v Sampson, 1882, 8 Q B D 491 Referred to, Matujena v Wright, [1909] 2 K. B 971 ] This was an action for slander, imputing a forgery. There was no plea of justification Fernley and Higgm for plaintiff. Edwin James, Q C , and Laresche, for defendant It appeared that the plaintiff is an attorney at Manchester, and the defendant called on his wife and said to her, " I am very sorry, very sorry indeed. I have come on a very curious errand I am very sorry for you Mr. [537] Bracegirdle has done such and such a thing, and I must transport him." His wife replied she did not fear that The defendant then said, " He has forged Mr Johnston's name to several letters that I have m my possession." He then said, if Mr Bracegirdle would pay him 151, he would let him off for his children's sake The defendant also spoke in similar terms to a Mr Guest, in consequence of which a Mr Saxby took some papers out of his hands At the close of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff himself was put into the box, and tendered as a witness for cross-examination, but was not examined in chief James proceeded to ask several questions, in cross-examination, as to the past conduct and life of the witness Byles, J.-These questions cannot be asked Inasmuch as he has proved nothing, you cannot cross-examine him to discredit him. James.-Does your Lordship decide that I cannot cross-examine him generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Speidel v Plato Films Ltd
...damaged by the defamatory matter complained of. Among all in support of the admissibility of this evidence. In ( Bracegirdle v. Bailey 1 F. & F. 536) such evidence was rejected by Byles, J. after consulting with Willes, J., and in Jones v. Stevens the evils attending its admission are eloqu......
-
Christopher Williams (Respondent (Plaintiff) v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd (Appellants
...as to particular instances with the object of diminishing the damages: see Scott v. Sampson 8 Q.B.D. 491; Bracegirdle v. Bailey 1F. & F. 536; and Watt v. Watt [1905] A.C. 115, 118 per Lord Halsbury. (2) On the other hand, if a plaintiff in chief gives evidence of any fact, and the defendant......