Cristie v Cowell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 58
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
cristie v cowell (Words actionable in themselves as containing a charge of felony, if spoken in reference to a trespass or breach of contract, are not so ) This was an action for words The words proved v\ere, " He is a thief, for he has stolen my beer " It appeared in evidence that the defendant was a brewer, and that the plaintiff had lived with him as servant , in the course of which service he had sold beer to different customers of the defendant, und received money for the same, which he had not duly accounted for Lord Kenyon directed the jury to consider whether these words were spoken in reference to the money received and unaccounted for by the plaintiff, or whether the defendant meant that the plaintiff had actually stolen beer , for if they re-[5]-ferred to the money not accounted for, that being a mere breach of contract, so far explained the word " thief '' as to make it not actionable Thus if a man says to another " You are a thief, for you stole my tree," it is not actionable (a)2, for it shews he had a trespass and not a felony in his contemplation The jury found for the defendant (6) Mr. Pratt, who was counsel for the defendant, objected that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove a bill delivered pursuant to the stat. of the 3 Jac I Mr. Hume and Mr Ford, for the plaintift, answered, that agents were not within that statute There was no such thing as an agent when that statute was made, the attomies then came to London to solicit their own causes No settled fees are allowed to agents, nor has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v Stott
...defendant, to shew that they were used in an innocent sense; and the question is one of fact to be determined by the jury. Crist v. CuwM(\ Peake, 4); Pen/old v. Westadt (2 Bos & I'ul. N. R. 335). The jury have oot found here that the words were used innocently, and, therefore, at all events......
-
‘Strathlorne’ Steamship Company v Baird & Sons
...J., at p. 51; Birrell v. Dryer, (1884) 11 R. (H. L.) 41, per Lord Selborne, L.C., at p. 42. 2 Roe dem. Henderson v. CharnockENR, (1790) 1 Peake, 4, 3 Rev. Rep. the balance of freight which the defenders have retained pending settlement of their counter claim. The defenders claim to set off ......
-
Valentine v Valentine
...(3), the last case, cited by Mr. Brown, that of the Carriage Bazaar, reported in 13 Ch. D. p. 513, note, under the name of Bulnois v. Peake (4), and the case of Montgomery v. Thompson (5), known as the Stone Ale Case. These were all cases in which there was a fancy name applied to the firm ......