Doyley v Roberts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1837 |
| Date | 06 June 1837 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 632
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 5 Scott, 40; 3 Hodges, 154; 6 L. J. C. P. 279; 1 Jur. 242.
doyley v. egberts. June 6,1837. [S. C. 5 Scott, 40; 3 Hodges, 154; 6 L. J. C. P. 279; 1 jut. 242.] "He has defrauded his creditors, and has been horsewhipped off the course at Doncaster," spoken of an attorney, Held, not actionable, unless spoken of him in his profession. Slander. The Plaintiff declared that he was an attorney, and that the Defendant had falsely and maliciously spoken and published of the Plaintiff, and of and concerning him in the way of his business or profession, that " he had defrauded his creditors, and had been horsewhipped off the course at Doncaster." Special damage, that one H. Gyde had, in consequence, declined to employ the Plaintiff. At the trial before Parke B., last Worcester assizes, the words were proved to have been spoken by the Defendant, of the Plaintiff, who was more engaged on. the turf than in law, and had had creditors in sporting [836] transactions ; and the jury found, in answer to questions put to them by the learned baron, That the words were spoken of and concerning the Plaintiff: That they were not spoken of him in his business of an attorney : That they had a tendency to injure him morally and professionally. But, That H. Gyde did not in consequence of them decline to employ the Plaintiff. A verdict was given for the Plaintiff, with 501. damages; but the Defendant had leave to move to enter a nonsuit instead, if the Court should be of opinion that the words were not actionable unless spoken of the Plaintiff in the way of his business as an attorney. Godson having obtained a rule nisi, accordingly, Talfourd Serjt. and Busby shewed cause. There was evidence to go to the jury as to the intention of the Defendant in speaking the words : if, therefore, they are not actionable, the Defendant should have demurred, or have moved in arrest of judgment, and not for a nonsuit. The jury having found that the words spoken had a tendency to injure the Plaintiff morally and professionally, the verdict ought to stand; for if they have a tendency to injure him in his profession, it is not necessary they should be spoken of him in his profession. In Onslow v. Horne (7 Wils. 186) De Grey C. J. laid it down, "That words are actionable when spoken of one in an office of profit, (a) This case, as well as the judgment in the preceding case, were furnished to the reporter (who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mary Anne Quinn v Harriette Wilson
...138, n. Cox v. Thomason and wifeENR 2 Cr. & J. 361. Lumby v. Allday 1 Cr. & Jer. 501. Ayre v. Craven 2 A. & E. 2. Doyley v. RobertsENR 3 Bing. N. C. 835. Dyster v. BattyeENR 3 B. & Ald. 448. Pratt v. SwaineENR 8 B. & C. 285. Sullivan v. White 6 Ir. Law Rep. 42. Lumby v. Allday 1 Cr. & Jer. ......
-
Southee v Denny
...that, if the words necessarily tended to injure a man in his profession, they were actionable, but in the case of Dot/ley v livbeits (3 Bing N C 835), the Couit of Common Pleas held that the slander must be spoken of the plaintiff in relation to his professional conduct Theie was a similar ......
-
Jones v Littler
...is the same, whether the defendant happens to be speaking of him in his trade of a brewer, or not. [Aldersori, B. Doyley v. Roberts (3 Bing. N. C. 835; 5 Scott, 40) seems to be an authority to the contrary. There the following words were spoken of an attorney-" He has defrauded his creditor......