Hemmings against Gasson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1858 |
| Date | 24 May 1858 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 537
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 252; 4 Jur. N. S. 834.
[346] hbmmings against gasson. Monday, May 24th, 1858. Under sect. 61 of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and forms 32, 33, in Schedule (B) to that Act, the declaration in an action for libel or slander need not state any colloquium, but may set out the words complained of, and put any construction upon them: by innuendo.-Whether the words were spoken with such meaning, : is for the jury.-When the libel or slander is, prima facie, a privileged communication, it is open to the plaintiff to put in evidence statements made by the defendant subsequently to the libel, as tending to shew malice in the defendant at the time of publication of such libel. The Judge ought, especially if there be a considerable interval between such statements and the publication, to direct the jury to consider whether such subsequent statements might not refer to something which happened subsequently to the libel, so as not to shew malice in the defendant at the time of the publication of the libel charged. [S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 252 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 834.] Action for libel and slander. The first count of the declaration stated that the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff the words 538 HEMMINGS V. GASSON Et. BL & EL Mf. following, that is to aay : " What do you think of my job? I am satisfied who it was got into my shop, as George Hearmon tells me that he met Hemmings" (meaning the plaintiff) "and his son about four o'clock the morning my shop was broken into: I found part of a letter on the floor of my shop, which was in the handwriting of Hemmings." Meaning, by the false and malicious words aforesaid, that the plaintiff bad forcibly arid with a strong hand broken arid entered the defendant's shop, and had wilfully and maliciously, and within three calendar months then last past, cut, damaged and destroyed the defendant's property in the said shop, to wit household furniture of the defendant, contrary to the statute in such case provided, and had committed criminal offences punishable by law. The second count stated that the defendant heretofore, to wit on &c., falsely and maliciously wrote and published of the plaintiff the false and malicious libel of and concerning the plaintiff, following, that is to say. " To the Editor of The Eye Chronicle. "Rye, April 9th, 1857. "Sir,-In your last number I am accused, by George [347] Hemmings, of having circulated a report charging him with damaging ray property. I will ask any one who I could judge more than him, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wilkinson v S Bennett Ltd
- Mowlds v Fergusson
-
Bolton v O'Brien
...B. Div. BOLTON and O'BRIEN M'Dougall v. Tyrrell 1 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 465. Hemmings v. GassonENR El. Bl. & El. 346. M'Grath v. BourneUNK L. R. 10 C. L. 160. Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 331. Sheppard v. WhittakerELR L. R. 10 C. P. 502. Griffiths v. Lewis 8 Q. B. 841. Alfred v. Farlow Ibi......
-
Murphy v Halpin
...R. 5 C. L. 124. Laughton v. The Bishop of Sodor and ManELR L. R. 5 P. C. 495. Koenig v. RitchieENR 3 F. & F. 413. Hemmings v. GassonENR E. B. & E. 346. Henwood v. HarrisonELR L. R. 7 C. P. 606. Wright v. WoodgateENR 2 C. M. & R. 573. Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 181. May v. BrownENR 3......