Edwards v Bell and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1824 |
| Date | 27 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 162
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 8 Moore, 467; 2 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 42.
[403] edwards v. bell and others. Jan. 27, 1824. [S C. 8 Moore, 467; 2 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 42.] The declaration charged the Defendant with publishing the following libel against the Plaintiff, a dissenting minister. " A serious misunderstanding has recently taken place amongst the independent dissenters of Great Mavlow and their pastor, in consequence of some personal invectives publicly thrown from the pulpit by the latter, against a young lady of distinguished merit and spotless reputation. We understand, however, that the matter is to be taken up seriously. Bucks Chronicle," -The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff, whilst officiating as minister, published from a part of a chapel assigned to him as minister for the delivery of a sermon, to and in the presence of his congregation, of and concerning one M. F., a teacher of a certain Sunday school, the scandalous words following: "I have something to aay, which I have thought of saying for some time, namely, the improper conduct of one of the female teachers, her name is Miss Fair; her conduct is a bad example and disgrace to the school; and if any of the children dare ask her to go home, she shall be turned out of the school, and never enter it again. Miss Fair does more harm than good ;" and thereby gave great offence to divers of the dissenters, to wit, one and one , and occasioned a serious misunderstanding amongst the dissenters. Verdict for Defendant: Held, upon motion to enter a verdict for Plaintiff non obstaute veredicto, that the plea was a sufficient answer to the libel charged. Case for a libel. The declaration, after an introductory statement, that the Plaintiff was a pastor or minister of certain dissenters at Great Marlow, charged the 1BINQ.401. EDWARDS V. BELL 163 Defendant with having falsely, wickedly, and maliciously published of and concerning the Plaintiff as such pastor, a libel to the tenor and effect following: "A serious misunderstanding has recently taken place amongst the independent dissenters of Great Marlow and their pastor, in consequence of some personal invectives publicly thrown from the pulpit by the latter, against a young lady of distinguished merit and spotless reputation. We understand, however, that the matter is to be taken up seriously. Sucks Chronicle." The Defendants, who were proprietors of the Times newspaper, pleaded, First, the general issue. Second, that before and at the time of the speaking and publishing tbe several scandalous words by the said [404] Plaintiff, as hereinafter mentioned, one Margaret Fair did assist in the management and conduct of a certain Sunday school, and was a person of distinguished merit and spotless reputation, and that the Plaintiff, well knowing the premises, before the several times of printing and publishing the several supposed libels by the Defendants, as in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramadhar v Ramadhar and Others
...the defendant need only prove the truth of the substance of the statements: “as much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge” Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403, 409 per Burrough 30 The meaning of words alleged to be defamatory is a question of fact. The judge must decide on the ba......
-
Sutherland v Stopes
...charge for which a separate justification is not required. Upon this point there is considerable authority. Thus in ( Edwards v. Bell 1824, 1 Bingham, 403), Mr. Justice Burrough said that "as much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in a charge w......
-
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another
...is given. The Court of Appeal in Chan Cheng Wah (at [44]) accepted the following position laid down by Burrough J in Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403, who stated at 409 that: …it is sufficient if the substance of the libellous statement be justified; it is unnecessary to repeat every word w......
-
Jamaica Observer Ltd and Another v Gladstone Wright
...sense…[i]t is that the words employed were true in substance or in fact’. 71 InEdwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403 (1824) 1 Bing 403 130 ER 162, the plaintiff, a nonconformist minister of religion at Marlow, complained of a newspaper article in which it was said that: ‘A serious misunderstandi......
-
Justification
...were substantially true. Gatley on Libel and Slander, 3rd. ed., at p. 179, on the authority of Edwards v. Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403, 130 E.R. 162, and subsequent cases, states the duty of the party pleading substantial justification thus: 'It is not necessary to prove the truth of every word o......