Delegal v Highley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1837 |
| Date | 22 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 677
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 5 Scott, 154; 3 Hodges, 158; 6 L. J. C. P. 337; at Nisi Prius, 8 Car. & P. 444.
delegal v. highley. June 12, 1837. [S. 0. 5 Scott, 154; 3 Hodges, 158; 6 L. J. 0. P. 337; at Nisi Prius, 8 Car. & P. 444.] 1. A plea to an action for a malicious charge before a magistrate, justifying the charge on the ground, that the Plaintiff had committed the offence imputed to him, is not sufficient unless it allege, that at the time of the charge the Defendant had been informed of, or knew the facts on which the charge was made.-2. A publication of proceedings in a court of justice cannot be justified if it contain disparaging observations made by any other than one whose duty called upon him to make them.- 3. It is no justification of such a publication to plead, that the proceedings in question took place, unless it be also alleged that charges made were true, or that the publication is a true and full account of the proceedings. The declaration stated, that the Defendant, on the 24th of October 1835, falsey and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured one John Henley to make, before [951] Henry Winchester, Esq., at the Mansion House, in the city of London, (the said Henry Winchester then being mayor of the said city, and one of the justices assigned to keep the peace of our Lord the King, within and for the said city, &c.) a certain complaint, charge, and accusation, against the Plaintiff, to wit, that the Plaintiff then improperly detained two blank bill stamps, having the signature thereon respectively of the said John Henley ; and that the Plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the said signature of the said John Heney to the said blank bill stamps respectively; and thereupon the Defendant then falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured the Plaintiff to be, and the Plaintiff then was thereupon summoned to appear, and did, on such summons, to wit, on, &c. necessarily appear at the said Mansion House, to answer the matters of the said complaint, charge, and accusation; and thereupon, to wit, on, &c., the Defendant falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured the said John Henley to prosecute and continue the said complaint, charge, and accusation, before the said Henry Winchester, then being mayor, &c., until the said Henry Winchester, then being mayor, &c., to wit, on, &c., having heard and considered every thing that was alleged and said touching the said complaint charge and accusation, wholly acquitted and discharged the Plaintiff therefrom; and then dismissed the said summons. The second count was for maliciously,-with the intention of injuring the Plaintiff in his good name, fame, and credit; of causing it to be believed that he had been taken into custody on a criminal charge, and was guilty of the offence, imputed to him,-publishing the following libel of and concerning the Plaintiff, and of and concerning the proceedings before the Lord Mayor. [952] " Police, Mansion House. On Monday, Charles Delegal, Irish provision agent, 39 Clement's Lane, Lombard Street 678 DELEGAL V. HIGHLEY 3 BING. (N. C.) 953. was charged before the Lord Mayor with having fraudulently obtained the signature of John Henley, a youth under twenty years of age, to two blank stamped bills. Mr. Flower stated the case to his Lordship, and called John Henley, who said he was induced by Delegal to come from Manchester to attend in a shop Delegal was about to open in the New Cut, Lambeth. After he had been a few days in town, he was desired by Delegal to go to his counting-house, in Clement's Lane, Lombard Street, when some papers were given him to copy; Delegal then placed before him two pieces of paper, which he desired him to write across, which Henley did, thinking Delegal wished it as a specimen of his handwriting; but when Delegal removed them he then saw the stamps, which had been hidden under some other papers. He had since asked Delegal about them, but received evasive answers. Charles Delegal produced several letters, which the Lord Mayor refused to look at. He then stated that one was only a memorandum, which had been destroyed ; and produced a mutilated portion of it, with the name of the complainant written on it: the other was a bill, which had likewise been destroyed, and he called Russell, who swore that he saw the bill destroyed about a week ago. Mr. Hobler, the chief clerk, observed, that it was exceedingly improper under any circumstances to obtain the signature of the complainant, a mere boy, to bills of exchange. The Lord Mayor said, that as it had been shewn that both the bills had been destroyed, the complainant need be under no further apprehension; and Delegal was discharged." The Defendant pleaded, secondly, that he caused and procured the said John Henley to make before the Lord Mayor the said complaint, charge, and accusation, against the Plaintiff in the first count mentioned, and [953] caused and procured the Plaintiff to be summoned to appear at the said Mansion House, and the said J. Henley to prosecute and continue the charge, complaint, and accusation, upon and with a reasonable and probable cause; that is to say, because theretofore, to wit, on the 1st of August 1835, the said J. Henley being the son of a sister of the wife of the Plaintiff, who was also a sister of the wife of the Defendant, had agreed with the Plaintiff to become a shop-boy in a certain shop of the Plaintiff; to wit, in the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey; he the said J. Henley, being then under the age of twenty years : and afterwards, to wit, on, &c., he the said J. Henley so being such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Ltd v Smith
-
Ager v. Canjex Publishing Ltd. et al., 2005 BCCA 467
...to. [para. 21]. Risk Allah Bey v. Whitehurst (1868), 18 L.T. 615 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29]. Delegal v. Highley (1837), 6 L.J.C.P. 337; 132 E.R. 677, refd to. [para. Taylor-Wright et al. v. CHBC-TV et al. (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 1 (S.C.), affd. (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 295; 236 W.A.C. 295; 82 B.C.L......
-
Kane v Mulvany
...Bing. 213. Lewis v. LevyENR E. B. & E. 537. Duncan v. ThwaitesENR 3 b. & C. 556. Rex v. CreeveyENR 1 M. & S. 273. Delegal v. HighleyENR 3 Bing. N. C. 950. Helsham v. BlackwoodENR 11 C. B. 111. Morrow v. Mƒ€™Gaver Ir. C. L. R., 579. Brabazon v. Potts 8 Ir. Jur., N. S., 6. Coo......
-
Ager v. Canjex Publishing Ltd. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 891 (SC)
...to. [para. 37]. Risk Allah Bey v. Whitehurst (1868), 18 L.T. 615 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39]. Delegal v. Highley (1837), 3 Bing. N.C. 950; 132 E.R. 677, refd to. [para. Kerr v. Conlogue (1992), 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 70 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 53]. Grech v. Odham's Press Ltd., [1958] 2 Q.B. 275 (C......