Chalmers v Shackell and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1834 |
| Date | 04 July 1834 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1326
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[475] July 4th, 1834 chalmers v shackell and others. (In an action for libel, to support a plea of justification stating that the plaintiff had forged and uttered, knowing it to be forged, a certain bill of exchange, to justify a verdict for the defendant, the same evidence must be given as would be necessary to convict the plaintiff if he were on trial for those offences ; but if the evidence falls short of satisfying the jury that the strict legal offence was committed, they may take the facts proved into their consideration in estimating the damages. If the declaration in case for a libel state, inter alia, that at a certain place certain meetings for the promotion of sedition and blasphemy had been held, and that the defendant published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the other matters, and of and concerning the said meetings, a libel charging him among other things with having taken the chair at the said place, but not saying anything of the character of the meetings there, it will not be ground of nonsuit should the plaintiff at the trial fail to prove that the meetings were such as he described in his inducement.) Case.-The declaration, which consisted of only one count, after the usual averment of the plaintiff's good character, and an allegation that he had been convicted of forgery and pardoned, proceeded as follows :-" And whereas at a certain place calLed the- Botunda, situate 111 the county of Surrey, certain meetings for the promotion of sedition and blasphemy had been held " It then proceeded to allege that the defendants, on the 27th January, 1833, published in a certain newspaper called the John Bull, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning his said conviction and pardon, and of and concerning the said meetings at the said Rotunda, the felloswing libel:- *' Verily the Whigs select choice subjects for the exercise of his Majesty's grace ! A few weeks since, the town was astonished at the respite from death of two men, who had been found guilty of a murder under circumstances of peculiar atrocity ; it was then suggested, that the respite was granted to court the favour of the inob-ocracy of Lambeth, as Lord Palrnerston had then some intention of standing for ihsA borough. In the Times of Friday is the following : " From a Correspondent.-Mr. Chalmers, who was convicted of forgery at the sessions of May last at the Old Bailey, has received his Majesty's gracious pardon. The case was reserved by the Court over several sessions for the opinions of the Judgies on various points of law, which were ultimately decided against him, and he wa$ at length sentenced to be transported for life Sentence having been passed, the case became fit to be recognised by the [47$] Secretary of State on the merits, and the result oi the investigation is, that Mr. Chalmers has received a pardon under the Great Seal, discharging him from all the consequences of the verdict, and restoring him to the enjoyment of all his civil rights and privileges, the same as if the conviction had not taken place " (a.) " In the farmer ease, the murderers were men of such notoriously bad characters, that the officers, when they heard of the deed, immediately proceeded to take them up on suspicion. In this case, we know that the crime of forgery was not new to Mr. Free Pardon Patrick Chalmers, and we think we can offer some reasons for this act of Whig liberal mercy. " Mr. F. P. P C was, for some time previous to his incarceration on this charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another
...into account by the jury when assessing damages even though the plea has failed. This goes back to the early nineteenth century (see Chalmers v. Shackell [1834] 6 C and P 475) and has been accepted in other common-law jurisdictions for many years, as can be seen in Sutter v. Brown [1926] Ap......
-
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing
...Ltd (1996) 65 SASR 527 Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37; 193 CLR 519 Chalmers v Shackell (1834) 6 Car & P 475; 172 ER 1326 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60; (2007) 232 CLR 245 Channel Seven Adelaide ......
-
MAGEE v MARK. [Exchequer.]
...48. M'Clory v. WrightIR 10 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 514. Thurtell v. BeaumontENR 8 B. Moore, 612; S. C., 1 Bing. 340. Chalmers v. ShackellENR 6 Car. & P. 475. Willmett v. HarmerENR 8 Car & P. 695. Baker v. Rusk 15 Q. B. 870. Davy v. BakerENR 4 Burr. 2471. Williams v. The East India CompanyENR 3 Ea......
-
Kelly's Carpetdrome Ltd v Gaynor & Tuffy
...and PATRICK TUFFY RESPONDENTS Citations: ALUMINIUM FABRICATORS LTD, IN RE 1984 ILRM 399 BATER V BATER 1950 2 AER 458 CHALMERS V SHACKELL 6 C&P 475 CHONA DISTRIBUTORS LTD, IN RE 1967 1 CH 889 COMPANIES ACT 1948 S332 (UK) COMPANIES ACT 1963 S297 HORNAL V NEUBERGER PRODUCTS LTD 1956 3 AER 970,......