Hopwood v Thorn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1849 |
| Date | 25 June 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 522
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 94; 14 Jur. 87. Referred to, Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q. B. 532.
[293] hopwood v. thorn. June 25, 1849. [S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 94 ; 14 Jur. 87. Eeferred to, Eatcli/e v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q. B. 532.] A declaration for slander and libel stated, by way of inducement, that the plaintiff was minister of a dissenting congregation at T., deriving emoluments from his said calling; that he had formerly been a draper at S., in partnership with H. P., his brother-in-law; that the partnership had been dissolved, and that there were certain accounts and money transactions between the plaintiff and H. P. in relation thereto; that false and scandalous reports concerning the plaintiff and the said partnership accounts and transactions had been circulated among the congregation at T., and it was proposed that one E. H. should examine into the said accounts and transactions, on the part of the plaintiff; and that a correspondence and discussion afterwards took place between the defendant and one E. A., relating to those accounts and transactions : the first count then proceeded to allege that the defendant, intending to injure the plaintiff in his office and character of minister of the congregation at T., and to cause him to be deprived of that office, &c., in a discourse of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him in his said calling and ministry, and of and concerning the said partnership, and the said accounts and money transactions with H. P,, spoke these words,-with proper innuendos,-" I do not go by reports : I go by a knowledge of facts. Mr. H. (the plaintiff) is a rogue ; and I can prove him to be so, by the books at S. Mr. H. pretends to say he has been as good as a father to him (meaning H. P.); but, you see, he has been robbing him. He has cheated Mr. P. of 20001.: so you see what sort of a father he has been to him. I will so expose Mr. H. (the plaintiff), that he will not be able to hold up his head in T. pulpit, or any other. I said to Mr. P., I do not wish to see the books, but he desired me to come in and see them; and he told me he did not care who saw them. Mr. H. (the plaintiff) has out-generalled him in every thing (meaning, that the plaintiff had taken an unfair advantage of the said H. P., and had conducted himself in an improper manner towards him in relation to and in connection with the said partnership and the said accounts). Now, I do not go by what I have heard ; but I know it to be true-."-In the second count, the words charged were,-" Mr. H. (the plaintiff) has cheated Mr. P., his brother-in-law, of upwards of 20001. Mr. H. (meaning the said E. H.) has been to S., and found all true as I represented to Mr. H. I wonder how any respectable person can countenance such a man by their presence. I have been advising some other persons to go to the Wesleyan chapel; as they would there hear plain honest men."-The fifth count charged the defendant with having written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said partnership transactions and accounts between the plaintiff and H. P., and of and concerning the said false and scandalous reports,-" It has all through been admitted, that Mr. H. (the plaintiff), in his dealings with relatives, kept clear (a) But the statement of facts which precedes the allegation that the judge duly ordered the committal, would, according to the decision of this court in Ex parte Kinning, ante, vol. iv. p. 507, appear to preclude the possibility of the existence of a valid order of imprisonment. 8 C. B. 294. HOPWOOD V. THORN 523 of the meshes of the law. The charges brought against him are not founded on strictly illegal acts, but on overreaching, &c., &c., his late partner."-The sixth count charged the defendant with having, in answer to a letter addressed to him by R. A. (the plaintiff's friend), containing, among other things, the following passage,- " You have even said in T., that Mr. H. (the plaintiff) has cheated his relations out of 20001."-written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said partnership, and of and concerning the said accounts and money transactions between the plaintiff and H. P., and of and concerning the words referred to in the . letter of K. A., as follows:-" I beg to tell you, that you do not understand the matters at all; that you have been grossly deceived; and that you are advocating a case the most disreputable that has come within my knowledge for many a day ; and this you will freely admit, .when the facts of it are fully comprehended : and this, my own opinion of the matter, is held in common with all the gentlemen and ministers who have heard both sides of the question,"-thereby meaning that the plaintiff had been and was guilty of improper and unbecoming conduct, and had behaved himself in a manner unworthy a preacher and minister as aforesaid.-The declaration then alleged for special damage, that the plaintiff had been injured in his calling as a minister and preacher, and brought into public scandal, &c., and that divers persons frequenting the said chapel at T., had withdrawn therefrom, and refused to permit the plaintiff to preach there, whereby the plaintiff had been prevented from obtaining profits, &c.-It appeared that the words charged in the first and second counts, were intended, and were understood, to convey an imputation that the plaintiff had taken advantage of his brother-in-law in the course of the partnership transactions and accounts, though by what precise means did not appear; and that the libels which were the subject of the fifth and sixth counts were written by the defendant in answer to a letter from the plaintiff's friend, E. A., who had been in correspondence with the defendant on the subject of the charges against the plaintiff, with the sanction and concurrence of the latter.-The only evidence of special damage was, that of a witness who stated that the plaintiff had told him he was to receive 301. a year for preaching in T. chapel; but there was no evidence as to the way in which that sum was to be raised, or who were the parties to pay it; neither was there any evidence that.any of the congregation had absented themselves from the chapel in consequence of the reports, or that the plaintiff had sustained any pecuniary damage therefrom; -Held, that, in the absence of proof of special damage, the words charged in the first and second counts,-not being spoken of the plaintiff in reference to his office of minister,-were not the subject of an action; and that the letters declared on in the fifth and sixth counts were in the nature of confidential and privileged communications. This was an action upon the case for defamation. The declaration contained nine counts. The first count stated, that the plaintiff, before and [294] at the time of the committing, &c. was, and continued to be, a minister of a certain sect of persons dissenting from the church of England, to wit, called or known as independents, and was from time to time called [295] upon, and required and employed, to preach to a certain congregation of persons so dissenting as aforesaid, at a certain chapel situate and being, to wit, at Thatcham, in the county of Berks, for that purpose regularly and in due form of law licensed and authorised by law, and had used and exercised, and at the said times thereinafter mentioned, and each of them, did use and exercise, his said calling of such minister as aforesaid, and his said office of such preacher as aforesaid, with propriety and religious demeanour in all things thereto appertaining, and during all the time aforesaid was deriving great gains, &c., from his said calling, and, but for the said grievances, would have continued so to do; and that the plaintiff, until the committing of the said grievances as thereinafter mentioned, was always reputed, esteemed, and accepted, by and amongst the said congregation, and his neighbours, and other good and worthy subjects of this realm to whom he was in any wise known, to be a person of piety, honesty, good name, fame, and credit: That the plaintiff had not ever been guilty, nor, until the time of the committing of the said grievances by the defendant thereinafter mentioned, been suspected to have been guilty, of the offences and misconduct as thereinafter stated to have been charged upon and imputed to him by the defendant: That, by means of the premises, the 524 HOPWOOD V. THORN 8 C. B.296. plaintiff, before the committing of the said grievances by the defendant as thereinafter mentioned, had deservedly obtained the good opinion and credit of the said congregation, and of all his neighbours and other good and worthy subjects, &c., and had also thereby obtained, and was then duly and honestly acquiring great gains and profits in his said calling of minister and preacher as aforesaid, to the plaintiffs comfortable support and maintenance: That, long before the committing of the said grievances by the defendant as [296] thereinafter mentioned, to wit, up to, and until, a certain day and year preceding the committing of the said grievances, to wit, the 1st of January, 1841, the plaintiff had carried on, in partnership with Henry Pinhorn, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, a certain trade or business, to wit, the trade and' business of a linen-draper, in the town of Southampton, in the county of Southampton : That afterwards, and before the committing of the said grievances by the defendant as thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the 1st of June, 1841, the said partnership between the plaintiff and the said Henry Pinhorn was dissolved, and thereupon divers accounts and money transactions relating to the said business, and the said partnership, and the said dissolution of the said partnership, had arisen, existed, and taken place between the plaintiff and the said Henry Pinhorn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayer v Begg
...Turner v. EvansENR 12 Ad. & El. 733. Lewis v. ClementsENR 3 B. & Ald. 702. Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 193. Hopwood v. ThornENR 8 C. B. 293. Carr v. DuckettENR 5 H. & N. 783. Halloran v. ThompsonIR 14 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 334. Murphy v. KellettIR 13 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 488. Carr v. HoodEN......
-
Wallace v Carroll
...Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C., M. & R. 181. Coxhead v. RichardsENR 2 C. B. 569. Amann v. Damm 29 L. J., N. S., C. P., 313. Hopwood v. ThomENR 8 C. B. 293. Cooke v. Wildes 5 Ell. & Bl. 328. Ruckley v. KiernanIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 75. Taylor v. Hawkins 16 Q. B. 308. Robertson v. M'DougallENR 4 ......
-
Owens v Roberts
...1 Cr. M. & R. 193. Coxhead v. WilliamsENR 2 C. B. 597. Bennet v. DeaconENR 2 C. B. 628. Gardner v. Slade 13 Q. B. 796. Hopwood v. ThornENR 8 C. B. 293. Harrison v. Bushe 5 Ell. & Bl. 344; S. C., 25 L. J., N. S., Q. B., 25. Taylor v. Hawkins 16 Q. B. 308. Bromage v. Prosser 6 Dowl. & Ryl. 29......