Du Bost v Beresford

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date06 December 1810
Date06 December 1810

English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1235

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS

Du Bost
and
Beresford

Disapproved, Emperor of Austria v. Day, 1861, 3 De G. F & J. 217, Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq 621.

[511] Thursday, Dec 6, 1810. Du bost v beresford (Q. If to trespass for destroying a picture the defendant may plead that it was a scandalous libel upon individuals, and that being publicly exhibited, he cut it to pieces by way of abating a nuisance ? The owner of such a libel picture so destioyed, is at most only entitled to recover the value of the paint and canvas which iormed its component parts ) [Disapproved, Emperor of Austna v. Day, 1861, 3 De G. F & J. 217 , Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq 621,] Trespass for cutting and destroying a picture of great value, which the plaintiff had publicly exhibited ; per quod he had not only lost the picture, but the profits he would have derived from the exhibition. Plea, not guilty. It appeared that the plaintiff is an artist of considerable eminence ; but that the picture in question, intituled La Belle et la Bete, or " Beauty and the Beast," was a scandalous libel upon a gentleman of fashion and his lady, who was the sister of the defendant. It was exhibited in a house m^ Pall-Mall for money , and great crowds went daily to see it, till the defendant one morning cut it in pieces Some of the witnesses estimated it at several hundred pounds The plaintiff's counsel insisted on the one hand, that he was entitled to the full value of the picture, together with compensation for the loss of the exhibition , while it was contended on the other, that the exhibition was a public nuisance, which everyone had a right to abate by destroying the picture Lord Ellenborough -The only plea upon the record being the general issue of not guilty, it is unnecessary to consider, whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd v Best Food Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 December 1994
    ...Ltd v Salthouse Bros Ltd [1976] RPC 589 (folld) De Cordova v Vick Chemical Co [1951] WN 195 (folld) Du Bost v Beresford (1810) 2 Camp 511;170 ER 1235 (folld) GE Trade Mark [1969] RPC 418 (refd) GE Trade Mark [1970] RPC 339, CA (refd) General Electric Co (of USA) v General Electric Co Ltd [1......
  • Dunlop Rubber Company v Dunlop
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 1 January 1920
  • Alan Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd and Wayne Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 June 2011
    ...STAR NEWSPAPERS LTD 1997 105 OAC 270 LIBEL & SLANDER ACT 1990 S5(1) (CANADA) JOZWIAK v SADEK & ORS 1954 1 WLR 275 DU BOST v BERESFORD 1810 2 CAMP 511 COOK v WARD 1830 6 BING 409 FULLAM v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS 1953-4 IRISH JUR REP 70 HULTON v JONES 1910 AC 20 YOUSSUPOFF v METRO -GOLDWYN-MAYE......
  • Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 28 September 2006
    ...(1848) 11 Beav 112 [ 50 ER 759]; Emperor of Austria v Day (1861) 3 De G F & J 217 at 239 [ 45 ER 861 at 870]. 290Du Bost v Beresford (1810) 2 Camp 511 [ 170 ER 291 ‘Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality’, (1916) 29 Harvard Law Review 640 at 645. 292 ‘Equitable Reli......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT