Carslake against Mapledoram
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1788 |
| Date | 27 April 1788 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 255
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Bloodworth v. Gray, 1844, 8 Scott, N. R. 11; 7 Man. & G. 335.
carslake against mapledoram. Monday, April 27th, 1788. These words spoken of a woman, " I have kept her common these seven years; she hath given me the bad disorder, and three or four other gentlemen," are not actionable, because they may refer to a time past. And no prohibition will be granted to a Spiritual Court, in which a sentence has been pronounced on a libel for this charge. Charging a person with having had a contagious disorder is not actionable, because it is no reason why the company of a person so charged should be avoided. [See Bloodwm-th v. Gray, 1844, 8 Scott, N. R. 11 j 7 Man. & G. 335.] The defendant libelled the plaintiff in the Archdeacon's Court of Exeter, for speaking the following words of her : " I have kept her common these seven years ; she hath given me the bad disorder, and three or four other gentlemen besides : " thereby meaning that the said Mapledoram was a whore. A prohibition was moved for the last term after sentence, on the ground that the words spoken were actionable. Gibbs now shewed cause against the prohibition. This application is made after sentence; and therefore, unless it appear on the face of the proceedings that the Court below had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, a prohibition ought not to be granted. Now these words are not actionable in themselves, even if the charge related to the present time ; and a declaration, without innuendos to explain the meaning of them, would be bad. For there are many disorders which may be termed bad disorders, but the having of which would not render the person an unfit member of society, or be any imputation on him ; a bad [474] disorder does not necessarily mean a contagious one. But even supposing that it did, still these words only refer to a time past, and therefore are not actionable. There are two grounds on which words are actionable, as producing a temporal damage; first, charging a person with having committed a crime, for which he may be afterwards punished : and, secondly, charging a person with having at the time a contagious disorder. Charging a man with the first of these at a time past is actionable, because he is liable to punishment at any distance of time : but the latter charge does not subject the person making it to an action, unless it be confined to the present time ; since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porzelius against Maddocks
...had once proceeded to trial, judgment (a)1 [See Gare v. Gapper, 3 East, 472. Gould v. Gapper, 5 East, 345. See also Curslake v. Maphdwam, 2 T. R. 473.] ; (a)3 [So where a wrong name is inserted, the proceedings will be set aside. Janes v.; Armytage, 2 Bos. & Pul. 38. Tidd's Pr. 166, 8th edi......
-
Mary Evans against Gwyn, Clerk, and Williams, Clerk
...prohibition, it not appearing that the sentence had proceeded upon the latter. The same doctrine was recognised in Carslake v. Mapledoram (2 T. R. 473). The word* in question may be considered as if they were before this Court in a case of [849] written slander; for, in the Ecclesiastical C......
-
Rich v Anderson
...East, 594. Lyons v. Lyons 2 Bur. 813. Blacquiere v. HawkinsENR 1 Doug. 378. Ladbroke v. CrickettENR 2 T. R. 649. Karslake v. MapledoranENR 2 T. R. 473. AnonymousENR 1 P. Wms. 477. Sparkes v. WoodENR 6 Mod. 146. Ex parte LynchENR 1 Madd. 15. Iveson v. Harris 7 Ves. 251. Rex v. Hare & Man 1 S......