Harrison v Bevington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1838 |
| Date | 08 December 1838 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 683
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[70S] Sittings in London, after Michaelmas Term, 1838, before Lord Abinger, C. B. Dec. 8th, 1838. harrison v. bevington. (Where words, imputing insolvency in trade, are spoken of one of the partners in a film, such individual partner may maintain an action of slander and recover damages for the injury done to him ; and it is not necessarily to be considered as an injury to the partnership, for which a joint action only Ccfcn be maintained. In an action of slander the witnesses must prove the wordn used, and cannot be allowed to state the impression produced apon their minds by the whole of the conversation.) 684 HARBISON V. BEVTNGTON 8 CAR & P. 7W. The declaration stated in substance, that the plaintiff carried on the business of a glue and size manufacturer, and that the defendant spoke of him in the way of hia trade certain words, imputing that he was in insolvent circumstances, and unable to meet his engagements, and that his name would soon be in the G.izette It contained other slanderous statements, and set out as special damage, that a particular firm in consequence refused to supply him with goods, and a person \\ ho was in partnership with him refused to continue so any longer, and the partnership was dissolved. Plea, the general issue. Kelly, for the plaintiff.-In cases like this, it is impossible to make the extent of the injury sustained the subject of direct evidence If a man goes about to markets and coffee-houses, uttering slanders affecting a man in his trade, many persons hear them, of wham the party slandered knows nothing ; he is cut by his acquaintance without being aware of the reason, and persons refuse to have dealings with him without his having ever heard that anything had been said against him Words spoken of a man in his business are different from all other slanders. If you call a man a thief, he does not of necessity become one, but if you continue to utter slanders imputing insolvency to him, they are very likely to produce it at last. It appeared, that the plaintiff had been for some time in the employ of the defendant, a glue manufacturer at Bermondsey, and left him about the middle of the year 1835, and set up for himself in the same business in the [709] neighbourhood. In the month of September, in that year, the defendant wrote to the landlady of the house where the plaintiff lodged, informing her that the plaintiff was not any longer in his service. Upon which she went to him, and a conversation ensued, in the course of which the defendant said that he understood the plaintiff owed her money, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too
...v Bell 1 Bing 403; 130 ER 162 (refd) Grubb v Bristol United Press [1963] 1 QB 309; [1962] 2 All ER 380 (refd) Harrison v Bevington 8 Car & P 708; 173 ER 683 (folld) Jenkins v Phillips 9 Car & P 766; 173 ER 1045 (refd) Maitland v Goldney 2 East 426; 102 ER 431 (folld) Rainy v Bravo (1872) LR......
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...done to him; and it is not necessarily to be considered as an injury to the partnership for which a joint action only can be main tained. 8 C. & P. 708, Harrison v. Mevinyton.] (e) [See ante, Vol. I. p. 154, notes to Eccleston v. Clipsham. 12 M. & W. 146, Sorsbia v. Park. But if the cause o......
- Tay Boon Too and Workers' party v A-G of Singapore; Workers' party
-
Goodall v Hoogendoorn Ltd
...130 E.R. 587); Le Tanu v Malcolmson (1 H.L.C. 637 and 73 R.R. 213 at p. 233); Haythorn v Lawson (3 C. & p. 196); Harrison v Bevington (8 C. & p. 708); Witwatersrand Native Labour Association Ltd. v Robinson (1907 T.S. 264); Cape Times Ltd. v SA News (16 C.T.R. 40) and de Villiers on Injurie......