Eliza Kelly against Partington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1833 |
| Date | 14 November 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 929
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 117; 3 L. J. K. B. 104.
eliza kelly against partington. Thursday, Nov. 14th, 1833. Declaration in slander. The second count stated that the defendant, contriving and intending to injure the plaintiff as a shopwoman and servant, maliciously spoke of her, as such, the following words :-" She (meaning the plaintiff) secreted Is. 6d. under the till; stating, these are not times to be robbed." The declaration alleged as special damage, that one S. by reason of the words, refused to take the plaintiff into his service. After a general verdict for the plaintiff, it was held, that the words in the second count, if actionable at all, were so only by reason of the special damage, and, therefore, that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover, ought to have full costs: Held, secondly, on motion in arrest of judgment, that the words in that count were not defamatory in their nature, and therefore were not actionable, even though followed by special damage, [S. 0. 3 N. & M. 117; 3 L. J. K. B. 104.] Slander. The declaration began with the usual averment of the plaintiff's good conduct and character, and stated that the defendant, contriving and intending to injure the plaintiff in her good name, &e. as a shopwoman and servant, falsely and maliciously spoke certain words mentioned in the first count. The second count stated that the defendant, further contriving and intending as aforesaid, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning her, as such shopwoman and servant, these other false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory words following: that is to say, " She (meaning the plaintiff) secreted Is. 6d. under the till; [646] stating, these are not times to be robbed "(a). The declaration concluded with an allegation of special damage, that one Stenning, by reason of the speaking of the words, refused to take the plaintiff into his service (6). The jury found a general verdict for the plaintiff with Is. damages, and the Master having declined to ,allow the plaintiff more costs than damages, a rule nisi had been obtained for' taxing the plaintiff her increased costs in the cause, against which Sir James Scarlett and Kelly now shewed cause, The statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 6, which enacts, that in actions for slander where the jury assess the damages under 40s., the plaintiff shall recover no more costs than damages, does not extend to cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v Boite
...followed by special damage, on the ground that such damage cannot be considered as the natural result of the speaking of the words. 5 B. & Ad. 645, Kelly v. Partington. 2 Nev. & M. 460, S. C. But the authority of Vicars v. Wilcocks, as to one of the points therein particularly decided, viz.......
- Weld-Blundell v Stephens
- Shapiro v La Morta and Another
-
Hearne, Clerk against Stowell, Clerk
...Tyrwh. 757). As the libel here is written, the strictness of construction adopted in actions for oral slander (as in Kelly v. Partington (5 B. & Ad. 645)), will not be applicable. Here il is not, as in actions for slander, necessary that the words should impute a legal offence, or an offenc......