Darby v Ouseley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 1856 |
| Date | 17 April 1856 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1093
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 25 L J Ex 227; 2 Jur. (N S) 497, 4 W. r. 463.
The EXCHEQUER REPORTS. REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMTNEL) in the COURTS of EXCHEQUER and EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Easter Term, 19 VECT., to Hilary Vacation, 20 VEOT., both inclusive. By E. T. HURLSTONE, of the Inner Temple, and J. P. NORMAN", of the Inner Temple, Esquires, Harristers-at-Law. Vol. I. London, 1857. [1] exchequer reporis. easter term, 19 vkjt dakby r. ousei ky April 17, IS~)6-The plaintiff, a tidewaitet in Her Majesty's Customs, brought an action against the publisher of a newspaper for a libel, imputing to him that he was a papal rebel, a tiaitoi, and an idolater, that he was a member of an association for the conversion of England to the Roman Catholic faith, and had enlisted himself in the service of a foieign potentate, and was bound never to decline from the purpose of annihilating all religious beliefs other than the Roman Catholic religion and Popeiy The defendant pleaded, not guilty, and a justification of so much of the libel as imputed to him that he was a member of the association, &c At the trial, the plaintiff, who was a witness, stated that he was a Roman Catholic, and had subscribed money to an association foi the conversion of England to the Roman Catholic faith , but had done no other act to become a member of it Held First, that he could not be asked, on cross-examination, whether his name was not written in a certain book of the association, no notice having been given to produce the book.-Secondly, (the plaintitt hawng admitted that he held himselt bound by the canons and deeiees of the Chuich of Rome), Held, that he could not be asked whether he consideied himself bound by the notes and comments of the Rheims Testament, since that was an inquiry into his religious belief -Thirdly, (the plaintiff having given in evidence a paragraph in a subsequent newspaper containing similar imputations against the plaintiff), Held, that the defendant was not entitled to have read as part of the plaintiff's case, a paragraph in that newspaper on thesubjectof "Papal Prosecutions/' but having no reference to the other paragraph -Fourthly, (the defendant's counsel having intimated his intention not to call witnesses), Held, that he had no light, in oider to shew the doctrines of the Church of Rome, to lead in his address to the jury, a Papal treaty with a Catholic State, nor canons, decrees or bulls of that church, nor the oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops, since those wete matters of fact which ought to be proved Fifthly, Held, that the imputations being false in fact and without a justifiable occasion, the law implied malice -Sixthly, Held, that there was no misdirection in omitting to tell the jury not to give damages in respect of the publication subsequent to the libel. [S. C -25 L J Ex 2J7 ; 2 Jur. (N S) 497 , 4 W. R. 463.] Libel The declaration stated that the plaintiff was an officer in Her Majesty's Customs, to wit, a tidewaiter, and that the defendant falsely and maliciously printed 1094 DARBY V. OUSELEY 1 H. & N 2 and published of the plaintiff in his character of tidewaiter, in a certain newspaper, called the L/iwrpool Herald, the [2] words following -The declaration then set out the libel which was contained in an article, entitled " A Papal Rebel m Her Majesty's Service " It imputed to the plaintiff that he was a traitor and an idolater, it also alleged " that the pLuntitf was a papist and raembei of an association for the conversion of England to the Kornan Catholic religion and Popery, with a fixed resolution of never declining from such purpose till it was fully accomplished , that the association, of which the plaintiff was a member, directed its efforts in a .special way to the point of converting all the people of England to the Roman Catholic religion and Popery, in order that when that obj'ect was gained the way might be opened to the extinction of all other religious opinions and beliefs, and to the spreading of the Roman Catholic religion and Popery throughout the whole world lhat the plaintiff had enlisted himself in the service of a foreign potentate, and was bound never to decline from the purpose of annihilating all religious opinions and beliefs other than the Roman Catholic religion and popery. That he was a member of an association working with a fixed resolution to overturn the national faith," &c. Pleas. First, not guilty. Secondly, to that portion of the libel imputing to the plaintiff that he was a member of the said association, &e. That befoie and at the time of printing and publishing the supposed libels, the plaintift being an ofh'cei in her Majesty's Customs, as in the declaration mentioned, was also a Papist and a member of an association, formed and established with the approbation and under the authority of the Pope of Rome, for the coruersion of England to the Roman Catholic religion and Popery, and as member of the said association he was solemnly pledged to devote himself to the work of the conversion of England as aforesaid, with a fixed resolution of never declining from such purpose till it was fully accomplished, which association [3J directed its efforts in a special way to the point of converting all the people of England to the Roman Catholic religion and Popeiy in order th.it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gleaner Company Ltd and Dudley Stokes v Abrahams (Eric Anthony)
...For this proposition the appellants relied on the cases of (I) Pearson v. Lemaitre 5 MAN & G 718 reported in [1843] 134 E.R. 742 (2) Darby v. Ouseley [1856] 156 E.R. 1093 and Anderson v. Calvert [1908] 24 T.L.R. 399. 63 In Pearson v. Lemaitre (supra) Tindal C.J. at page 749 stated: "And thi......
-
Nagle v Shea
...4 East, 53. Abbott v. PlumbENR 1 Doug. 215. The King v. The Inhabitants of Harringworth 4 M. & Sel. 350, 353. Darby v. OuseleyENR 1 H. & N. 1, 5. Brown v. BrownENR 8 E. & B. 876. Gordon and others v. SecretanENR 8 East, 548. Henman v.LesterENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 781. Rearden v. Minter 5 M. & ......
- Zinda v Governing Body of Barn Hill Community High
-
Balfour and Another v The Official Manager of the Sea Fire Life Assurance Comapany
...note : Ellison v, Goltiugridye, 9 (1 B. 570, Allen v. The & i Fire Life-Axittirance ('ompany, 9 C. B. 574; and Agys v. Nicholson, 1 Hurlst. & N. 1G5, and Liiulux v. Mdroxe, 2 Hurlst. & N. 29.'i, ahew that the company are liable upon it, and not the persons who signed it. The substantial que......