Hearne, Clerk against Stowell, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1840 |
| Date | 16 November 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 986
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 P. & D. 696; 11 L. J. Q. B. 25; 6 Jur. 458. Considered, Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 743.
[719] heabne, Clerk, against stowell, Clerk. Monday, November 16th, 1840. In case for libel, the declaration stated that plaintiff was a Roman Catholic priest, and priest of a chapel named, and that defendant, intending to injure him in his aaid offices, published of him, in those offices, a libel, which was set out. The alleged libel contained an account of a Eoman Catholic having been seen performing a penance, which was suggested to be of a degrading kind, and added that the party performing the penance said that his priest would not administer the sacrament to him till he had performed it, and that his priest was the plaintiff. The declaration also set forth certain comments of the defendant, accompanying the publication, and in which the Eoman Catholic discipline was attacked. The libel was not otherwise connected with plaintiff: nor were there any allegations shewing how the enjoining of such a penance would affect the character of a Eoman Catholic priest. Judgment arrested, the Court holding that the publication was not, on the face of it, libellous, and refusing, even upon the assumption that plaintiff was charged with imposing the penance, to intend that the jury had evidence before them of any injury to plaintiff which the declaration did not shew, though some evidence to that purpose was in fact given. Held that, if the publication had been libellous, it would not have been justifiable on the ground that it was promulgated at a public meeting called to petition Parliament against making a grant in support of a Bornan Catholic college. [S. C. 4 P. & D. 696; 11 L. J. Q. B. 25; 6 Jur. 458. Considered, Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 743.] Case for libel. The inducement to the first count stated that the plaintiff was a clergyman and priest of the Eoman Catholic religion, and held the office of senior clergyman of St. Patrick's Chapel, Manchester, being a chapel duly certified and recorded for the celebration of the services of the said Eoman Catholic religion, and had used and exercised his said office of clergyman, &c., and his said office of senior clergyman, &c., with propriety and religious demeanour (with the other usual inducements). The declaration then charged that defendant, well knowing, &c., contriving, &c. to injure plaintiff in his good name, &c., and to injure, oppress, and aggrieve him in his said offices and calling of clergyman and priest of the said Eoman Catholic religion and clergyman of the chapel aforesaid, and to hinder him in the discharge of his duties in his said offices, and to vex, harass, and oppress him as such clergyman and priest of his said religion, and as such clergyman, of the said chapel, heretofore, to wit on, &c., wilfully, falsely, and maliciously, did publish of and (a) The whole of the plea could not, in this case, have been properly traversed by a replication de injuria, the set-off being matter of discharge, not excuse. Salter v. Purchell, 1 A. & E. N. S. 209. (In the marginal note to that case, p. 197, last line but one, for "excuse"read "discharge.") 12 AD. & E. 720. HEARNE V. STOWELL 987 concerning plaintiff, and of and concerning plaintiff in his said offices of clergyman and priest of the said religion and of the said [720] chapel, in the presence of, &c., a certain false, scandalous, and malicious, and defamatory libel, in a certain paper or document which defendant then declared and stated he then held in his hands and then stated and declared was subscribed by three of the policemen of Manchester, one of whom the defendant stated was not a policeman at that moment, but that be was so at the time he (meaning the said policeman), furnished the said document or paper, containing, amongst other things, the false, scandalous, and malicious words following, of and concerning plaintiff as such clergyman and priest of the said religion, and of and concerning plaintiff as such clergyman of the said chapel; which said words defendant then, in the presence, &c., read aloud from the said document or paper, of and concerning plaintiff as such clergyman and priest aforesaid of the said religion and of the said chapel. The declaration then set out the alleged libel, with innuendoes. Such of the innuendoes only as are necessary for rendering the case intelligible are here set out. The libel charged was as follows. A dyer, going to his work, asked me (thereby meaning a certain police officer, to wit one of the said three policemen) if I had seen a man walking on his hands and knees, the last two nights. I said that I had not, but that I had seen him doing it (thereby meaning, walking in manner aforesaid) the last two mornings : and that I at first thought he was making his escape, or concealing himself, from some pursuers, but that I subsequently took him for a cripple. In about ten minutes after this the dupe (thereby meaning the said man) made his appearance, crawling with his hands and knees on the roughest part of the pavement (meaning the pavement of and in a certain public highway). I [721] then resolved to satisfy myself; when I elicited the following answers from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Inerney v The "Clareman" Printing and Publishing Company
...470. Goldstein v. FossENR 6 B. & C. 154. Grant v. YatesUNK 2 T. L. R. 368. Hakewell v. IngramUNK 2 C. L. R. 1397. Hearne v. StowellENR 12 Ad. & E. 719. Henwood v. HarrisonELR L. R. 7 C P. 606. Jones v. SpencerUNK 14 T. L. R. 41. King v. CuthellST1 27 State Trials, at p. 675. Levi v. MilneEN......
-
Craft v Boite
...that he should charge malicious motives and a calumnious tendency ; he must also shew on the record that there is a libel on him. 12 A. & E. 719, Hearne v. Stowell. 4 Perr. & D. 696, S. C.] English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 276 COURT OF KING'S BENCH Craft and Boite See River Wear Commissio......
-
Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
...S. C. 5 A. & E. 535, Martin v. Strong. 1 Nev. & P. 29, S. C. 3 Mees. & W. 297. 11 A. 6 E. 380, Padmore v. Lawrence. 3 P. & D. 209, S. C. 12 A. & E. 719, Hearne v. Stowell. 4 P. & D. 696, S. C. 12 A. & E. 733, Tmon v. Evans. 4 P. & D. 396, S. C. (e) [8 B. & C. 578. 9 B. & C. 403. 4 B. & Ad. ......
-
Grubb v Bristol United Press Ltd
...any sufficient ground for it in the words of the document; and this' for reasons not technical ( Goldstein v. JT' OSS, 6 3. & C. 1b4, Hearne v. Stowell, 12 A. & a. 719, Capel v. Jones, 4 C. B. 259)- And although no such matter of inducement need now be stated on the record, it seems to me ......