Harvey v French
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 293
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 Tyr. 585; 2 Moo. & Sc. 591; 1 L. J. Ex. 231.
[11] exchequer chamber. habvby v, french. 1832.-A count for a libel stated that defendant published a false libel of and concerning the plaintiff, containing, amongst other things, the false, &c., matter of and concerning the plaintiff, that is to say: " Threatening letters.-The Middlesex Grand Jury have returned a true bill against a gentleman of some property, named French," (meaning the said plaintiff,) "with this, that the said plaintiff will verify that the said defendant thereby then and there meant to insinuate and have it understood, that the said plaintiff had been suspected to have been, and had been, guilty of the offence of sending a letter without any name or signature thereto subscribed, directed to one Trotter, threatening to kill and murder the said Trotter, a subject of the realm, with a view and intent to extort:"-Held, first, that the innuendo at the con-elusion of the count was bad ; and secondly, that the matter was libellous without such innuendo, which might be rejected as surplusage. (In Error from the Court of Exchequer.) [S. C. 2 Tyr. 585; 2 Moo. & Sc. 591; 1 L. J. Ex. 231.] Libel. The declaration contained seven counts. The fifth count stated that the defendant (below) falsely, wickedly, and maliciously did compose, print, and publish, and cause and procure to be composed, printed, and 294 HARVEY V.FRENCH 1C.&M.12. published, in a certain newspaper, a certain, false, scandalous, malicious, and defama tory libel, of and concerning the said plaintiff (below), containing, amongst other things, the false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libellous matter following, of and concerning the said plaintiff (below), that is to say : " Threatening letters.-The Middlesex Grand Jury have returned a true bill against a gentleman of some property, named French," (meaning the said plaintiff below), " with this, that the said plaintiff (below) will verify that the said defendant (below) thereby then and there meant to insin uate and have it understood, that the said plaintiff (below) had bean suspected to have been, and had been, guilty of the offence of sending a letter, without any name or signa ture thereto subscribed, directed to one Trotter, threatening to kill and murder the said Trotter, a subject of the realm, with a view and intent to extort, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid." The sixth count was similar to the fifth, slightly varying the statement of the publication. At the trial, a general verdict was found for the plaintiff below, and judgment having been entered up accordingly, a writ of error was brought. [12] Platt, for the plaintiff in error. Where the libellous quality of the words is derived from circumstances extrinsic of the words themselves, the connection with those circumstances must be shewn by introductory averment of the facts; by shewing that the libel related to the facts averred; and connecting them together by innuendo, if necessary. Jri Barham's c.ase (4 Hep. 20 a.), the words* were-"Master Barbara did burn my barn ;" innuendo-"a barn filled with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v Boite
...sense in which the rest of the world naturally understand them." Per Lord Ellenborough C.J. in 9 East, 95, Roberts v. Camden. [See also 1 Cr. & M. 11, Harvey v. French. 10 Bing. 402, Slow-man v. Dutton. 4 M. & Sc. 174, S. C. 4 B. & Ad. 630, Tomlinson v. BrittlebanL 10 Bing. 478, Curtis v. C......
-
Grubb v Bristol United Press Ltd
...of Lords and in this Court. 13 Before 1852 an innuendo did not create a separate cause of action from the libel on which it was founded: Harvey v. French, 1 Crompton & Meeson, 11. Moreover, it could only be established if it was supported by some averment on the record. 14 In 1777 Lord Chi......
-
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd
......put it in Harvey v. French , F36 to be read “in the sense in which ordinary persons, or in which we ourselves out of court … would understand them.” Whether ......
- Loughans v Odhams Press Ltd