Hickinbotham v Leach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1842 |
| Date | 22 June 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 510
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 270; 11 L. J. Ex. 341. Considered, Zierenberg v. Labouchere, [1893] 2 Q. B. 186. Applied, Wotton v. Sievier, [1913] 3 K. B. 503.
H|CKLNBOTHAM v. I,each. Exch. of Pleas. June 22, 1842.-To a declaration for -.:- words, imputing to the plaintiff, a pawnbroker, that he had committed the unfair and dishonourable practice of duffing, that is, of replenishing or doing up goods, being in his hands in a damaged or worn-out condition, and pledging them with other pawnbrokers, the defendant pleaded, that the plaintiff did replenish and do up divers goods, being in his hands in a, damaged or worn-out condition, and pledge them with divers other pawnbrokers. Held bad on special demurrer, as not being sufficiently specific. [S, C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 270; 11 L. J. Ex. 341. Considered, Zierenberrj v. Labouchere, [1893] 2 Q. B. 186. Applied, Walton v. Sievier, [1913] 3 K. B. 503.] Slander. The declaration stated, that the defendant charged the plaintiff, a pawnbroker and silversmith, with committing the unfair and dishonourable practice of "duffing," i.e. of replenishing or doing up goods being in his hands iu a damaged or worn-out condition, and pledging the same with other pawnbrokers. Plea, that the plaintiff did replenish and do up divers goods, then being in his hands in a damaged and worn-out condition, and did pledge the said goods with clivers other good and worthy subjects of this realm, then being pawnbrokers. Verification. [362] Special demurrer, assigning for causes, that it was not stated by the plea what goods, or what kind of goods, being in a damaged condition, the plaintiff replenished and did up, nor with what pawnbroker or pawnbrokers the said goods so replenished and done up were pledged. Erie, in support of the demurrer. Thia plea is much too general and vagua in its statements ; the plaintiff cannot learn from it what he is to come to prove or disprove. It Is in effect only a general plea that the plaintiff carried on his business in a disreputable manner, which is the libel itself. The defendant cannot justify by merely repeating the general imputations of the slanderous words. This plea would not give the plaintiff any notion what were the goods alleged to be replenished and done up, or when or with whom they were pledged. If the defendant had the evidence of his statement, he might have specified the goods and the persons. The justification must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...the first part of the paragraph out. But this central thesis must be spelt out with the particularity of an indictment: see e.g. Hickinbotham v Leach (1842) 10 M&W 361. I have not lost sight of Miss Sharp's contention that "the article could not have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable read......
-
Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Stephen Foley and Others
...in that context that Mr Warby highlighted the longstanding principle that he is entitled to have the particularity of an indictment: Hickinbotham v Leach (1842) 10 M & W 361." 54 The judge made a similar observation at paragraph 62 of his first judgment when dealing with the Control Risks m......
-
Craft v Boite
...condition, and pledge them with clivers other pawnbrokers, the plea was held bad on special demurrer, as not being sufficiently specific. 10 M. & W. 361, Hickin-boiham v. Leach.] A plea justifying the publication of the reasons of the plaintiff's dismissal from the service of the East India......
-
The Queen on the Prosecution of Wray v the Governors of the Darlington Free Grammar School
...no specific [713] facts being stated ; J'Anson v. Stuart (1 T. R. 748), Newman v. Bailey (2 Chitt. Rep. 665), Hickiribotham v. Leach {10 M. & W. 361). It is argued on the other aide that the return, alleging a dismissal by the governors "in the exercise of" their "best discretion," they "de......