Fleetwood v Curley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 413
King's Bench Division
353. fleetvvood versus curley. Hill. 16 Jac. Rot. 1197. London. Waller. Action for words, Mr. Deceiver hath deceived and cozened the King. 1 Roll. 82. 2 Ro. R. 148. 2 Cro. 557. Goclb. 341. Mod. R. 23 Hetl. 139. 143. Miles Fleetwood Knight, brought an action upon the case against Francis Curley Esquire, and declared, that whereas the King, by his letters patents, an. 7. did make him general receiver of the Court of Wards during his life, which office he had justly executed ever since; that the defendant the 16 of K. Jac. having speech with one Whorewood of the plaintiff, did speak of the plaintiff these words, M. Deceivei (innuendo the plaintiff) had deceived and cozened the King, and dealt falsly with 414 FLEETWOOD V. CURLEY HOBABT, 268, him, and I have him in question for it, arid I doubt not but to prove it ere it be long. Upon issue not guilty, it was found for the plaintiff before me at Guildhall; in arrest of judgment it was said, that it doth not appear by the words spoken, that they were spoken of the plaintiff; for M. Deceiver had no propriety to that purpose, and then the innuendo will not make it certain, when it appeareth to the Court that the words will bear no certainty. [268] Secondly, it was objected, that he did not say, that the plaintiff did deceive the King in his office; yet the Court, after divers arguments, gave judgment for the plaintiff. And as to the first exception it was agreed, that if a man should say, looking upon three persons, one of these three murdered a man, no innuendo will help this ineertainty, no more in the person than in the matter of the scandal. P. 13 Jac. Harvy brought an action against Ducking, for saying, that he had forged a writing, innuendo a bill of debt, setting down in the innuendo all the circumstances; and though he had a verdict, yet could have no judgment. But here it is said, that at the time of the words the defendant had speech of the plaintiff, and expresly that he spake these words of the plaintiff. And then the word deceiver, though in propriety it doth not import receiver, yet the allusion arid ironical resemblance of the name doth very well bear the application of the innuendo, and if such a slight evasion should be admitted, it would be a common practice with crafty wits, to slander safely. And if he had said, M. Receiver, there had been no doubt. And as to the second point, it was likewise agreed, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Congentra AG v Sixteen Thirteen Marine SA (The Nicholas M)
...the former suit in favour of the plaintiff, because the want of probable cause cannot otherwise be properly alleged: see Waterer v Freeman, Hob. 267; Parker v Langley, 18 Mod. 209, 210; Whitworth v Hall, 2 B. & Ad. 695, 698, per Parke, B. But, in the present case, the complaint is not that ......
-
Stennel v Hogg
...So in an action for a malicious prosecution, it ia necessary to allege in the declaration that the prosecution is at an end. 2 Eich. 3, 9. Hob. 267, Waterer v. Freeman. 10 Mod. 209, 210, Parker v. Langley. 2 Vin. Abr. 35, MSS. Blackgrave v. Oden. Doug. 215, Fisher v. Bristow. 2 T. E. 225, M......
-
Skinner v Gunton, Lyon, and Leason
...of conspiracy, which is found against him, because the defendant G-unton alone could not levy a plaint, and cause (1) S. P. 2 E. 3, 9. Hob. 267, Caterer v. Freeman. 10 Mod. 209, 210, Parker v. Langley. 2 Vin. Abr. 35, MSS. Blackgrave v. Oden. Doug. 205, Fisfier v. Bristow. 2 T. R. 225, Morg......
-
Luttin against Benin
...480. (b) Adney v. Vernon, 3 Lev. 243. Dye v. Olive, March, 117. (c) Mico v. Morris, 3 Lev. 234. Richardson v. Barnard, 1 Roll. Abr. 809. (d) Hob. 267. Cro. Eliz. 836. 4 Co. 14. Cro. Jac. 3. T. Jones, 214. 1 Vent. 86. 2 Mod. 30, 195. 878 EASTER TERM, 4 QUEEN ANNE. IN B. R. ll MOD. 61. lie: a......