Brayne v Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 106
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 80.
BRAtNE v. cooper. Exch. of Pleas. 1839. - Words spoken of a tradesman, imputing to him that his trade is maintained by the prostitution of a female employed by him, are not actionable (although laid to be spoken of him in his trade) ; unlesa they can be construed as imputing that he kept a bawdy-house. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 80.] Oaae for slander. The declaration stated that the plaintiff carried on the trade and business of a stay-maker, to wit, at &c., and that before and at the time of the speaking and publishing of the words by the defendant, he had employed one Sarah Barnes as his servant and assistant in such trade, yet the defendant, contriving and inteflding to injure the plaintiff in his said trade and business, &c., in a certain discourse, &c., falsely and maliciously spoke of and concerning the plaintiff in his said trade and business, the several false, &c. words following : that ia to say, (inter alia), " Thi business qf a staymaker does riot keep him, but the prostitution of the person in the shop ; after it is shut, it ia as bad as any bawdy-house in the town." Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Littledale, J., at the last assizes for Sussex, the worda having been proved, the learned Judge left it to the jury to say whether they imputed to the plaintiff that he kept a bawdy-house ; stating his opinion to be, that unless theyidid, the action could not be sustained. A verdict having been found for the defetjdant, Platt moved, in the beginning of this teem, for a new trial, on the ground of mis direction, It was not necessary, in order to entitle the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett in Error v Long
...and LONG. Alexander v. AngleUNK 4 M. & P. 870. Goldstein v. FossENR 6 B. & C. 154. Ayre v. CravenENR 2 Ad. & El. 2. Brayne v. CooperENR 5 M. & W. 249. Robinson v. JermynENR 1 Price, 11. Hawkes v. HawkeyENR 8 East, 427. Roberts v. CamdenENR 9 East, 93. Woolnoth v. MeadowsENR 5 East, 469. Mar......
-
James against Brook
...(12 A. & E. 719), shews that the record ought to point out how the imputation affects the plaintiff in his calling. In Brayne v. Cooper (5 M. & W. 249), the declaration charged that the plaintiff carried on the trade of a stay-maker, and that defendant said of him, in his said trade, "The b......
-
Lefanu and Another, in Error, v Malcomson and Others
...Rep. 49. Hearne v. StowellENR 12 Ad. & E. 731. Lumbey v. AlldayENR 1 Cr. & J. 301. Ayre v. CravenENR 2 Ad. & E. 2. Brayne v. CooperENR 5 M. & W. 249. O'Connell v. Regina 11 Cl. & F. 372. Scott v. WilliamsENR 1 Cr. & M. 689. Holmes v. Black F. & S. 28. Harvey v. FrenchENR 1 Cr. & M. 11. Smit......
-
Crawford & Frame v Vance
...R. 7 C. P. 606. (4) 24 T. L. R. 452. (5) 23 T. L. R. 364. (6) [1907] 1 K. B. at pp. 507–8. (1) L. R. 7 H. L. 448. (2) 1 C. & J. 301. (3) 5 M. & W. 249. (4) [1895] 1 Q. B. at p. (1) 24 T. L. R. 452. (1) In the Court of Appeal, before The Lord Chancellor, and Fitzgibbon and Holmes, L.JJ. ...