Craft v Boite
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 276
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1877, 2 App. Cas. 763.
276 CRAFT V. BOITE 1WM8. SAUND. 241. [241] 36. craft versus boite. Hil. 20 & 21 Car. II. Regis, Roll 902. [See River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1877, 2 App. Cas. 763.] Same precedent. 1 Mod. Ent. 188. London, to wit.-Be it remembered, that heretofore, to wit, in the terra of St. Michael last past, before our lord the King at Westminster, came Joseph Craft clerk, by Daniel Marwood his attorney, and brought here into the Court of our said lord the King then there his certain bill against Joseph Boite, in the custody of the marshal, &c of a plea of trespass upon the case; and there are pledges of prosecution, to wit, John Doe and Richard Roe; which said bill follows in these words, to wit; London, to wit, Joseph Craft, clerk, complains of Joseph Boite, being in the custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea of our lord the King before the King himself; for that whereas he the said Joseph Craft is a good, true, pious, faithful, and honest subject of our lord the now King, and as auch good, true, pious, faithful and honest subject of our said lord the now King, and of the Lord Charles the First, late King of England, from the time of his nativity hitherto, hath behaved, had, and governed himself, and for all the time aforesaid was had, held, and reputed of good name, fame, condition, conversation, and reputation, as well among venerable persons, as other grave and faithful subjects of our said [242] lord the now King, with whom he the said Joseph Craft had any acquaintance ; and also as such faithful and honest subject of our said lord the now King hath hitherto remained and continued unhurt, untouched, and immaculate, without any kind of theft, felony, fraud, deceit, and without the imputation or suspicion of the same, or any of them. By means of which said good name, fame, condition, conversation, and reputation, and by reason of his learning in the study of divinity in the University of Oxford, for four years and more, he the said Joseph Craft had obtained the favour and good-will of divers noblemen and great men of this realm of England : and he the said Joseph Craft, for the space of three years now last past, hath been, and yet is, a minister of the Holy Gospel, in the Holy Church of this realm of England, and hath taken upon himself the holy orders of the said church, and for all the time last above mentioned hath been in that function, with the greatest praise and commendation for his exemplary zeal for piety, innocence of life, and integrity; insomuch that he hath not only obtained and had the love and goodwill of all his neighbours and other faithful subjects of our said lord the King, and nobles and great men, but also had, daily gained and received divers great gains, profits, and advantages to the great and more ample maintenance and support of him the said Joseph Craft, and the great increase of his wealth : nevertheless the said Joseph Boite, not ignorant of the premises, but contriving and maliciously intending to deprive him the said Joseph Craft of his said good name, fame, credit, esteem, and reputation, which he before possessed, and to bring him the said Joseph Craft into scandal, infamy, and dislike, as well among all the venerable persons, as other grave and faithful subjects of our said lord the now King, and particularly among hia neighbours and friends, and also to cause the said Joseph Craft to be punished according to the laws and statutes of this realm of England, made and provided against those who should commit such kind of felonies or thefts, on the 20th day of October, in the 20th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second the now King, at London, to wit, in the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the ward of Cheap, in the presence (1) and hearing of divers faithful subjects of our said lord the now King (1) The declaration must shew a publication of the slander, otherwise the action does not lie ; and therefore it is averred in this declaration, that the defendant spoke the words in the presence and hearing of several persons. But these words, though generally used, are not absolutely necessary : any others that denote a publication are sufficient; as, that the defendant spoke the words "palam," or "publice." Cro. Eliz. 861, Taylor v. How. So, alleging the words to be spoken in the presence of several persons, omitting the word "hearing" is held to be sufficient; for it shall be intended to be in their hearing. Cro. Eliz. 486, Hall v. Hennesley. Cro. Jac. 39, Kellan v. Manesby. Cro. Car. 199, Smart v. Easdale. And, as the declaration must shew a publication, therefore, if the words are Welsh, French, or other foreign 1WMS.SAUKD.M2, PASCH. 21 CAB. II. REGIS 277 being then and there present, and hearing the same, falsely and (2) maliciously spoke, language, the plaintiff must aver that the hearers understood such language; Hob. 268, in Fleetwood v. Curley. Cro. Eliz. 865, Price v. J/snkings. 1 Rol. Abr. 74 (A.)(a); unless, indeed, with respect to Welsh words, the action is brought in any of the Courts of Great Sessions in Wales ; (b) for it shall be intended the hearers understood the words. But it does not seem necessary, though usual, to give the signification of such foreign words in the declaration; for the Court will inform themselves by those who understand the language, what the words mean in English. Hob. 126, 1 Eol. Abr. 86 (L.) pi. 5. And it is safer not to translate the words; for it has been held that, where the words in Welsh signified that the plaintiff was peijwred, and were therefore actionable, but the translation of them into English did not amount to perjury, bub only that the plaintiff was forsworn, no action would lie. Sty. 263, Ross v. Lawrence.(c) It is an established rule, that slanderous words must be understood by the Court in the same sense as the rest of mankind would ordinarily understand them. Therefore, where one said of another "that Ms character was infamous; that he would lie disgraceful to any society ; that those who proposed him as a member of any society must have intended an insult to it; that he would publish his shame and infamy; tltat delicacy forbad him from bringing a direct charge, but it ivas a male child, who complained to him:" these words were understood to mean a charge of unnatural practices, and sufficiently certain in themselves to be actionable, without the aid of an innuendo to that purpose, which, it was admitted, would not enlarge the sense. 5 East, 463, JFoolnoth v. Meadows.(d) (2) The declaration must also shew a malicious intent in the defendant; but it ia (a) In an action for a libel in a foreign language, the original must be set out, and not a mere translation. 6 T. R. 162, Zenobio v. Axtell. The libel ibself must be set out in the declaration ; hence, it is not sufficient to state that the defendant published a libel, " purporting that the plaintiff's beer was of bad quality, and sold by deficient measure," &o.; for such a mode of statement deprives the defendant of taking the opinion of the Court upon the words of the libel by demurrer. 6 Taunt. 169, Wood v. Brown. 1 Marsh, 522, S. C. [See also 3 B. & A. 503, Wright v. Clements, ante, p. 121, note (a).] So in actions for verbal slander, the words must be stated. 3 M. & S. 110, Cook v. Cox. [And this general rule, requiring the words to be specified, is applicable to cases where special damages are made the ground of the action. Therefore a declaration for words imputing that tulips of the plaintiff, about to be sold by auction, were stolen property, whereby purchasers were deterred from bidding, and the sale was defeated, was held bad in arrest of judgment. 1 Mees & W. 495, G-utsole v. Mathers, There is an ancient form of count in slander, that the defendant " impoaed the crime of felony " on the plaintiff; which words are a bad translation of the Latin " crimen felonies imposuit." The legal sense and meaning of those words ist that the party made the charge of felony before a magistrate: and it is not sufficient, in support of such a count, to prove that the plaintiff was charged with felony in conversation. 2 B. & C. 283, Blizard v. Kelly. 3 D. & R. 519, S. C. See also 6 M. & S. 29, Davies v. Noake. The objection to which this form of count is open, that it does not specify the particular felony with which the party was charged, is not valid after verdict. 2 B. & C. 283.1 (b) [Abolished by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 70, s. 14.] (c) But it should seem, that it would now be held necessary to set out a transla tion in the declaration ; for in Eex v. Manasseh Goldstein, which was tried at the Old Bailey, the prisoner was found guilty upon an indictment framed on the statute 43 Geo. 3, c. 139, for forging an instrument purporting to be a Treasury note or receipt of the Prussian Government. The case was afterwards argued before ten of the Judges, abs. Bayley J. and Wood B., on 4th Feb. 1822; and a majority of eight to two of their Lordships held, that the indictment was bad for want of a translation of the instrument, which was in German. 3 Brod. & Bing. 201. The reason appears to have been, that their Lordships considered that the Court ought to have the instru ment before them, in a language which they understand, to give them the means of deciding whether it be within the statute. Bayley on Bills, 5th ed. 445. (d) " The rule which at one time prevailed, that words are to be understood in 278 ò CRAFT V. BOITE 1 WHS. BAUND. 2tt. asserted, and with a loud voice published and proclaimed these false, feigned, scandalous, and opprobrious words of (3) the said Joseph Craft, in these English words following; not necessary to use the word " maliciously;" for the word "falsely " alone has been held to be sufficiently expressive of a malicious intent. Moor, 459. Ow. 51, Mercer v. Sparks. S. C. Noy, 35.(e) Indeed in Sty. 392, Aiwn. Rolle, C.J...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...the law, but only such as be parties or privies thereto." See 5 H. 7, 19 a. * Post, 2*7, note (4). * 5 Eep. 18 a. 270 THURSBY V. PLANT 1WMS. SAUND. 241. therefore the intent of the statute was not to transfer every privity of contract, but to knit and annex the covenants touching or concern......
-
Salkeld v Johnson and Others
...410. This reasonable practice was put an end to by the construction which the majority of the Court of King's Bench in Craft v. Boite, 1 Saund_ 241, put on the 16 & 17 Car. II. c. 8, which enacts that no judgment shall be arrested or reversed, for that there is no right venue; so as the cau......
-
The Dean and Chapter of Windsor v Gover
...rent, and shall bind the successor; adjudged in Denny's case; and the rent goes with the reversion." See Bac. Abr. Leases, 352. (11) See 1 Saund. 241, Thursby v. Plant, continuation of note (5). * 3 Rep. 24 b. Walker's case. t 1 Saund. 240, Thwrsby v. Plant. (12) Prom the above-cited cases ......
-
Devereux v Barlow
...v. Lambard, 2 East, 575, it was held that an action of covenant lies against the assignee of the lessee for a part of the rent. See 1 Saund. 241, Thursby v. Plant, note (5).(a) (a) [So an assignee of part is liable to an action of covenant for not repairing that part. Cro. Car. 221, Congfia......