Cox v Thomason and Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 154
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 Tyr. 411; 1 L. J. Ex. 128, and (as to costs) p. 498, post; 1 Dowl. P. C. 572; 1 L. J. Ex. 187.
[361] reports of cases argued and determined [N the courts of exchequer and exchequer chamber. exchequer of pleas, easter term, 2 will. IV. Cox v. thomason and wife. 1832.-In an action of slander, the declaration stated the colloquium to be of and concerning certain meat of one A. B., which he had before purchased of the plaintiff, who had before then purchased the same of certain other persons, and had paid for the same. The declaration then stated, that the slanderous words complained of, imputing that the plaintiff' had stolen the money with which he paid for the meat, were spoken of and concerning the said meat. The part of the inducement, which stated, that the plaintiff' had purchased the meat and paid for it, was not proved :-Held, that the want of such proof was immaterial. [S. C. 2 Tyr. 411 ; 1 L. J. Ex. 128, and (as to costs) p. 498, post; 1 Dowl. P. C. 572; 1 L. J. Ex. 187.] The first nine counts of the declaration were for a malicious prosecution. The tepth began by stating, by way of inducement, that before the committing of the grjevances, &c., a certain portmanteau of the defendant Thomason, containing a sum of I money, together with the money, had been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away. The count then alleged a verbal slander relating to the portmanteau. The eleventh count was as follows :-And afterwards to wit, on the fith day of November, 1831, in the county aforesaid, in a certain other discourse, which the said defendant, Elizabeth Thomason, then and there had with, and in the presence of one Joseph Guildford and clivers [362] other good and worthy subjects of our said Lord the King, who then and there knew, and had heard of the premises in the introductory part of the said tenth count mentioned, of and concerning the said plaintiff, and of and concerning the said money in the introductory part of the said tenth count mentioned, and of and concerning the said Joseph Guildford, and of and concerning certain meat of the said Joseph Guildford, which he had before then purchased of the said plaintiff', who had before then purchased the same of certain other persons, and had paid for the same, she, the said Elizabeth Thomaaon, further contriving and intending as aforesaid, thfn and there, in the presence arid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hews v Pyke
...was intended for the relief of defendants, that the plaintiff should be at liberty to levy for more than the excess. 154 COX V. THOMASON 2 C. & J. 361. Per Curiam. The statutes 43 Geo. 3, c. 14, and 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 71, which were intended for the benefit of defendants subject to arrest, wo......
-
Mary Anne Quinn v Harriette Wilson
...95, b. Browne v. Gibbins Salk. 206. May v. BrownENR 3 B. & C. 113. Lewis v. WalterENR 3 B. & C. 138, n. Cox v. Thomason and wifeENR 2 Cr. & J. 361. Lumby v. Allday 1 Cr. & Jer. 501. Ayre v. Craven 2 A. & E. 2. Doyley v. RobertsENR 3 Bing. N. C. 835. Dyster v. BattyeENR 3 B. & Ald. 448. Prat......