Clement v Lewis, Gent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 1822 |
| Date | 18 May 1822 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 1299
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMPER.
S. C. 7 Moore, 200; 10 Price, 181.
[297] (!n the exchequer chamber.) clement v. lewis, gent, (in Error). May 18, 1822. [S. C. 7 Moore, 200; 10 Price, 181.] Where an account of certain proceedings in a court of law was headed in a newspaper, " Shameful conduct of an attorney," Pleas to a declaration in libel, that the alleged libel contained a faithful and true account of proceedings in a court of law, were held ill.-The jury having found for the Defendant on six out of eight pleas, comprehended in the last of two issues, and for the Plaintiff ou the residue of those pleas, and on the first issue without assessing damages; and the Plaintiff having, pursuant to the decision of the Court of K. B., entered up as to the pleas found for the Defendant, judgment non obstante veredicto, with an award of a writ of inquiry, and final judgment for the damages found by the inquisition, &c.: a court of error reversed the judgment of the Court of K. B., as to the award of the writ of inquiry, and the final judgment thereon-remitted the record to the Court of K. B.-and directed that court to award a venire de novo to try the first issue and the last, as far as related to the pleas on which the finding was for the Plaintiff; holding, that the verdict found for the Plaintiff on the first issue, and on the last, (as far as : regarded the pleas on which the finding was for the Plaintiff,) was void, because no damages had been assessed. ; Lewis s^ied Clement in the King's Bench, for a libel in the Observer newspaper, beaded "Shameful Conduct of an Attorney." Pleas, first, General issue, and issue thereon; and then eight special pleas, justifying on the ground, that the alleged libel contained a faithful and true account of the several proceedings therein stated, had in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and issue on those pleas. The jury, at the trial, found ft verdict for the Plaintiff on the first iasue, and on the last as far as related to the lecond and sixth pleas, without assessing damages ; and for the Defendant on the last iasue as far as it related to the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth pleas. The Court of King's Bench, on a motion to enter up judgment for the Plaintiff, non obstante veredicto, decided that the pleas were ill, because the words at the head of the libel formed no part of the proceedings in the Insolvent Debtors' Court,-gave [298] judgment for the Plaintiff (a),-awarded a writ of enquiry to assess the damages, and judgment was thereon entered up for 5001. damages and 40s. costs, (the sum assessed,) and 6061. for costs of encrease. : The Defendant brought a writ of error in Cam. Scacch., and assigned for errors, that judgment was entered up non obstante veredicto; and common error. Joinder] in error. (/) See f2 Campb. 211, et seq. Mayor v. Johnson, 3 Campb. 324. Poole v. Smith, Holt, N. P. C. 144. Mossop v. Eadon, 16 Ves. jun. 430. See also Williainsdn v. Clements, 1 Taunt. 523. (a) See 3 B. & A. 702, et seq. 1300 CLEMENT V. LEWIS 3 BEOD. B. 2. Flatt, for the Plaintiff in error, contended, that the heading of the libel imputed no misconduct beyond that which was developed in the ensuing statement; and that the finding of the jury had in effect thrown the heading out of the account. But on this point the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below. Platt then objected that the verdict was void, because the jury had not assessed damages on the issues found for the Plaintiff, that the Court below ought therefore to have awarded a venire de novo instead of a writ of inquiry, the rule being, that when the court ex officio ought to inquire of any thing upon wbich no attaint lies, there the omission may be supplied by a writ of inquiry; but in all cases, when any point is omitted whereof attaint lies, it shall not be supplied by a writ of inquiry of damages, but by a venire de novo; that attaint would have lain against the original jury in the present case, of the benefit of which the Dafendant would be deprived if he were concluded by the finding of an inquisition on which no attaint lies; he cited Comyns' Dig. tit. Damages, E., Gheyney's case, 3d Eesolution (10 Rep. 119 a.), [299] Heydon's case (11 Rep. 6 a.), Eichorn v. Le'maitre (2 Wils. 367), and Kirk v. Nowill (1 T. R. 118, 266). Marryatt, for the Defendant in error. It may be true, that where the first jury omits something which it ought to have found, the Court cannot ex officio ascertain by a writ of inquiry what has been omitted. In all the cases cited, the verdict having passed for the Plaintiff, the jury omitted something which they might and ought to have found; but neither those cases, nor the principle just laid down, are applicable to the present case, where the verdict having passed for the Defendant on an issue going to the whole declaration, the jury had no power to find damages for the Plaintiff; and therefore, have omitted nothing. [Per Curiam, they may find for a Defendant on special pleas, and damages for the Plaintiff under the general issue. Sayre v. Earl of Rochford (2 W. Bl. 1165), Kirk v. Nmvill and this is not unusual.] Then, the reason for not awarding a writ of inquiry, namely, that the Defendant may thereby ba deprived of his attaint, can scarcely be urged with effect at this day, when the writ of attaint has been obsolete for nearly two centuries. However, if it were otherwise, a writ of attaint would not have lain in this case, for the jury could only have erred in the amount of the damages, and for excess or insufficiency of damages, a writ of attaint does not lie. Barker v. Sir Wolston Dixie (2 Str. 1051). Where there is a verdict on an immaterial issue, or on an issue ill joined after a justification, the Court will award a new writ to inquire of damages, Lacy v. Reynolds (Cro. El. 214), 2 Roll. Abr. 99 D. [300] Jones v. Bodinham (1 Salk. 173. Carthew, 370, S. C.), Staple v. Haydon (ibid.), Broame v. Rice (2 Str. 873), Broadbent v. Wilks (Willes, 364), Darrose v. Newbott (Cro. Car. 143), Knight v. Lillo (2 Wils. 81), Graven v. Hanky (2 Com. Rep. 548), Lucena v. Craufurd (2 N. R. 329), 2 Roll. Abr. 722, were also referred to for the purpose of (hewing that the Court had been in the habit of awarding writs of inquiry id cases similar to the present; but they were distinguished by the Court, or shewn not to apply. The following judgment was entered up by order of the Court. It appears, that notwithstanding the verdict found for the Defendant, still the Plaintiff ought to recover damages. But it farther appears to the Court, that the jury by whom the issues were tried, ought to have assessed the Plaintiff's damages, by reason of the grievances contained in the declaration; and by reason of their not having assessed such damages, the verdict for the Plaintiff on the first and last issues, so far as relates to the second and sixth pleas, is void in law, It further appears, that in the record and proceedings, &c., there is error, in this, that the Court of King's Bench have awarded a writ of inquiry, and proceeded to final judgment thereupon; therefore it is considered that the verdict and the inquisition of damages be annulled and vacated, and the final judgment in the King's Bench be reversed,-that the record be remitted to the Court of King's Bench,-and that the same Court do apew command the sheriff to oause a jury to come, &c., to try the first issue and the said other issue, so far as relates to the second and sixth pleas.
English Reports Citation: 147 E.R. 282
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 3 Br. & B. 297; 7 Moore, C. P. 200; 3 B. & Ald. 702; 10 Price, 181.
[181] in the exchequer chamber. Error from the Court of King's Bench. cleurnt v. lewis, gent, (one, &c.). Tuesday, 30th April, Saturday, 18th May 1822.-An account published in a newspaper of proceedings in a Court of Law, containing matter redounding to the discredit of a person in his business of an attorney at law, is, whether true or false, rendered actionable as libellous by the paragraph being headed or introduced with the line "Shameful conduct of an Attorney."-Pleas, by way of justification, therefore, in such a case, averring that the suppose'! libel contained a faithful and true account of the proceedings in a Court of Law, were determined to be bad pleas, by reason of the preceding words.-Affirmed on Writ of Error.-The Jury having found a verdict for the Plaintiff in the action on the issues joined upon the plea of not guilty, and also on the second and sixth special pleas, without assessing damages, and having found for the defendant in the action on the other issue as far as it related to all the other five special pleas, the Court below ordered judgment to be entered for the Plaintiff on the issue upon those pleas, non obstante veredicto pro Defen-dente.-The verdict found for the Plaintiff in the action on the first issue joihed on the plea of not guilty, and on the second issue in so far as it related to I the second and sixth special pleaa by way o justification, held to be imperfect by reason c)f the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd
-
Hamlin against Crossley
...not be taken for the plaintiff, in this form, at the present stage of the proceedings. Sand v. Vaughan (1 New Ca. 767), Clement v. Lewis (3 Br. & B. 297), Hall v. Cole (4 A. & E. 577), Putney v. Swann (2 M. & W. 72), were cited. And a discussion took place on right of the parties with regar......
-
Goodwin v Parker. in C. B
...127, 128. And it is the ground on which a writ of inquiry is in many cases refused for supplying a defective verdict, 2 Wils. 367. 3 Brod. & Bing. 297. (h) See the judgment of the Court reported at large in Vaughan, in which the ministerial and judicial functions of the jury are distinguish......
-
Robinson and Cherry against Reynolds, one of the Publie Officers of the National Bank of Ireland
...judgment is erroneous, because the Court has assessed the damages without the intervention of a jury. This appears from Clement v. Lewis (3 Br. & B. 297). Kelly, contra. Prima facie, the acceptance of the bill imports consideration : the question is, therefore, whether the plea negative con......