Colburn v Patmore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 999
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 677; 3 L. J. Ex. 317. Discussed, Burrows v. Rhodes, [1899] 1 Q. B. 816. Referred to, Campbell v. Campbell, 1840, 7 Cl. & F. 166; Shackell v. Rosier, 1836, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 648; 2 Hodges, 17; 3 Scott, 59; Reg. v. Holbrook, 1878, 4 Q. B. D. 48; R. Leslie, Limited v. Reliable Advertising and Addressing Agency, Limited, [1915] 1 K. B. 658.
£73] cqlburn ò. patmore. Exch. of Pleas. 1834. - The declaration stated that the defendant had been employed by the plaintiff to edit the Court Journal for reward, and that he did not perform the duties of editing the same in a proper manner, but, without the knowledge, leave, authority, or consent of the plaintiff, " falsely, maliciously, and negligently inserted and published in the same a false and malicious libel," &c. That, afterwards, an information was exhibited against the plaintiff "for the falsely and maliciously printing and publishing" of the said libel, and such proceedings were thereupon had that the plaintiff was convicted of that offence, and fined 1001. After verdict for the plaintiff the judgment was arrested, on the ground that the injury sustained was not connected with the breach of duty averred, it not appearing that the printing and publishing of which the plaintiff was convicted was thu same act as that with which the defendant was charged, viz. the inserting and publishing. : - Sehible, that the proprietor of a newspaper, convicted and fined for the publica- tion t f a libel in the paper, inserted without his knowledge and consent by the : ò editoi1, cannot recover against the editor the damages sustained by such conviction. : [S. C, 4 Tyr. 677 ; 3 I,. J. Ex. 317. Discussed, Burnrns v. llkotlen, [1899J t Q. B. 8 Hi. Referred to, Campbell v. Campbell, 1840, 7 01. & F. 161! ; titiaekell v. Hosier, 1830, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 648; 2 Hodges, 17 ; 3 Scott, 59 ; rkij. v. ttolbronk, 1878, 4 Q. B. D. 48 ; R. Leslie, Limited v. Reliable Advertisi'ng and Addressing Agency, Limited, [1915] 1 K. B. 658.] Case. The declaration stated that the defendant, before and at the time of thu committing of the grievances by the defendant, had been and was retained and employed by the plaintiff to take upon himself (a) the various duties of editing a certain publication, to wit, a publication called the Court Journal or LfitzMee of the Fashionable World, then the entire property of the plaintiff, and whereof the plaintiff was theijl and there the proprietor, and to devote all his time and attention to the same, sa've and except the hours he had already engaged to devote to the superintendence of the County I'resx, and wbioh hours were not to be increased1 beyond those then required on the Saturday and Monday in each week, so that they should not interfere with the time and attention necessary to be given to the Court Journal, ; and to undertake the literary management of the said Court Journal, and to prepare for the press all articles and matters belonging thereto to the best of his ability, and to the satisfaction of the plaintiff; to write on the average one original article weekly, also the reviews, and articles of fashion, music, literature, the drama, the fine arts, digest of political events ; to select from other journals all that might be found suitable to the pages of the C'mirl Journal ; and generally to contribute to the utmost of his power to the interest and success of the said journal, for reward to the defendant in that behalf. And it was stipulated that political controversy (ct) See the agreement set out, ante, p. (17. 1000 COLBURN V. PATMORE I C. M. & E. 74. and party politics should form no part of [74] the said j'ournal without the consent of the plaintiff; and that the most perfect impartiality should be adopted in the literary and critical departments; and the defendant had then and there accepted such retainer and employment; and under and by virtue thereof, at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter next mentioned, had taken upon himself the various duties aforesaid, and then and there was the editor of the said publication called the Court Journal; yet the defendant, disregarding his duty in that behalf, and contriving and wilfully intending to injure and aggrieve the plaintiff, did not perform and discharge the various duties of editing the said publication called the Court Journal in a due and proper manner; but on the contrary thereof, to wit, on &c., in &o., without the knowledge, leave, authority, or consent of the plaintiff, falsely, maliciously, and negligently () inserted and published, and caused to be inserted and published, in the said publication called the Court Journal, the false, scandalous, malicious, libellous, and defamatory matter following, of and concerning &c. &c.- [the declaration then set out a gross libel on a peeress]-contrary to his duty as such editor as aforesaid, and to the duties which he had been retained to perform as aforesaid, and in breach and violation thereof. And the plaintiff further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v Hunt
...other is confined to cases where the person seeking redress must be presumed to have known that he was doing an unlawful act." 13 In Colburn v. Patmore [1834] Exch. 1 CM & R 73 Lord Lyndhurst C.B. said at page 83: "I know of no case in which a person who has committed an act, declared by th......
-
David Michael Joyce (by his Litigation Friend Stephanie Tarrant) v (1) Edward Gerald O'Brien (First Respondent) (2) Tradex Insurance Company Ltd (Second Respondent)
...two strands of authority may be integrated. Criminal joint enterprise. 6 Almost two centuries ago Lord Lyndhurst CB said in the case of Colburn v Patmore (1834) 1 Crop. M & R 73, 83: "I know of no case in which a person who has committed an act, declared by the law to be criminal, has been ......
-
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority
...cases in which contractual rights are pursued, those in which property is claimed and those in which other rights are in issue. 20 In Colburn v Patmore [1834] 1 CR, M, & R 73 at page 83, Lord Lyndhurst LCB said: "I know of no case in which a person who has committed an act, declared by the ......
-
Belize International Services Ltd v The Attorney General of Belize
...culpable conduct. Emphasis added. See also the similar facts which arose for consideration in Colburn v. Patmore (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 73, 149 E.R. 999 (Exch.) While this example cannot be explained in terms of profit, since the claim is one of compensation for a fine incurred, it does accord......