Defries v Davis, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1835 |
| Date | 15 May 1835 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 50
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
Adjourned Sittings at Westminsterr after Easter Term, L835, before Lord Chief Justice Tmdal. May 15th, 1835. defbies v. davis, widow. (In an action for slander, the plaintiff may give evidence of anything that the defendant afterwards said, that goes to shew malice in the defendant, provided that it cannot be the subject of another action ; therefore the plaintiff may give evidence that the defendant repeated the same words at a subsequent time, or spoke on. the subject of this action, but cannot go into evidence of other words sabsecpiesitly spoken, if those words may be the subject of another action On the trial of an aetien for slander, the plaintiff may go into evidence to shew that he had recovered in a previous action for slander against the defendant's son, aai that after the tnal of that action, he sent to the defendant's attorney to compromise the present action.) Slander.-The declaration, which consisted of only one count, stated, that the deiendaat spoke of the plaintiff [113] certain words, imputing that the plaintiff had stolen a sovereign. Plea-Not guilty. Taliemrd, Serjt., for the plaintiff, proposed to call witnesses to prove that the defendant had spoken other words of the plaintiff subsequently to the speaking of the wok!* which were the subject of the present action Bompas, Serjt., for the defendant.-I submit that this evidence is not receivable. These words may be the subject of another action, and therefore ought not to be given in evidsae* lit tbas camse. 1 believe that Lord Abmger and Mr. Justice Patteson have both rejected evidence of this kind. Serjt.-I apprehend that thus evidence is admissible to prove the motives of the defendant, and to shew that she waa really actuated by feefing towards the plaintiff. Tindsl, C. J.-You may shew anything that is evidence of malice, but you must not shew anything that would be the subject of another action It has been a vorj usual course of late to restrict the evidence in that way , and there is good sense in so doingt aathe jury ought not to mix up the words in question with other words, in considering the amount of damages I will receive any evidence of a repetition of the words ; so, if you have any other words which shew an animus, not by separate slander, but by a repetition of this slander, or by other words, which shew tlie saa train of thought, I will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett in Error v Long
...S. & B. 386. Harvey v. FrenchENR 1 C. & M. 11. Rex v. Nolan 1 H. & B. 164. Regina v. O'ConnellUNK 11 C. & F. 253. Defries v. DaviesENR 7 C. & P. 112. Jackson v. Adams 2 Scott, 599. CASES AT LAW. 331 H. T. 1846. Exch. Cham. errbtaintr aambtr.. BARRETT in Error v. LONG. (In Error from the Com......
-
Express Malice
...(1968), 1 D.L.R. (3d) 270, per Seaton J. (later Seaton J.A.) at 275 (B.C.S.C.), approving Defries v. Davis (1835), 7 Car. & R 112, 173 E.R. 50. Similarly, where a defendant before trial has said that he would be delighted to appear in Court and repeat in open Court the defamatory expression......