Hankinson v Bilby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1847 |
| Date | 28 January 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 1262
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[442] hankinson v. bilby. Jan. 28, 1847.-The use of words imputing an indictable offence is actionable or not according to the sense in which they may fairly be understood by bystanders not acquainted with the matter to which they relate, or which may render them a privileged communication, and the secret intent of the speaker in uttering them in the presence of such bystanders is immaterial. Case. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before and at the committing of the grievances, was a gardener, and thereby acquired great gains, and earned his livelihood ; and that the defendant, well knowing &c., on &c., in a discourse which he had of arid concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him as such gardener, in the presence and hearing of divers subjects, then in the presence and hearing of tha said subjects, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him as such gardener, the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory words following (that is to say):-"You (meaning the plaintiff) are a thief, and a bloody thief. You (meaning the plaintiff) get your (meaning the plaintiffs) living by it. You (meaning the plaintiff) have robbed Mr. Lake of £'M, and would have robbed him of more, only you (meaning the plaintiff) were afraid. I (meaning himself, said defendant) did mean what I said ; be off, I don't want any blopdy thieves (meaning the plaintiff) here. You (meaning the plaintiff) know you (moaning the plaintiff) robbed Mr. Lake of .£30." By means of the speaking and publishing which words divers persons have believed the plaintiff'to be a person guilty of the offences and misconduct imputed to him, &o. Pleas, not guilty; and other pleas which became immaterial. At the trial, before Holfe, B., it appeared that the words were uttered by the defendant, a toll collector, to the plaintiff, as he passed the Kingslancl turnpike-gate, in the presence of several persons as well as the witness. The nature of the previous conversation between the plaintiff and defendant did not appear. The learned Baron told the jury, that it was immaterial whether the defendant intended to convey a charge of felony against the plaintiff' by the words used, the question being, whether the bystanders would understand that [443] charge to be conveyed by them. Verdict for the plaintiff for .£5. Humfrey now moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. NTo special damage being laid, it was necessary to shew the words to be actionable in themselves. The witness called by the plaintiff' to prove the words was purposely selected, he not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WHITE v TYRRELL. [Common Pleas.]
...v. TophamENR 4 T. R. 129. Rex v. DarbyENR 3 Mod. 139. Hiscocks v. 5 M. R. W. 363. Doe d. GwillimENR 5 B. & Ad. 139. Hankinson v. BilbyENR 16 M. & W. 442. Rex v. RidgwayHRC 1 D. & R. 132. Bromage v. ProsserENR 4 B. & C. 247. Rex v. Tucker 1 moo., C. C., 134. Abbott v. BurbageENR 2 Bing., N. ......
-
Helps v Natal Witness Ltd and Another
...by defendant. See Tomlinson v Brittlebank (4 B and Ad. 630 at p. 632 and 110 E.R at p. 694); Hankinson v Bilby (16 M and W. 442 and 153 E.R. 1262); van der Merwe v Slabbert (1921 AD 88 at p. Even if the words were equally capable of an innocent and of an injurious meaning, there is no presu......
-
Helps v Natal Witness Ltd and Another
...by defendant. See Tomlinson v Brittlebank (4 B and Ad. 630 at p. 632 and 110 E.R at p. 694); Hankinson v Bilby (16 M and W. 442 and 153 E.R. 1262); van der Merwe v Slabbert (1921 AD 88 at p. Even if the words were equally capable of an innocent and of an injurious meaning, there is no presu......
-
Mahomed v Kassim
...sense, does not raise an issue of fact which in jury trials would fall to be decided by the jury. The case of Hankinson v Bilby, 175 E.R. 182; 153 E.R. 1262, illustrates the recognition in law of the fact that the word 'thief' may be used in a non-defamatory sense. On the other hand, H in c......