Ingram v Lawson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1839 |
| Date | 12 December 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 854
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
S. C. 2 Mood. & R. 253. Prior proceedings, 5 Bing. N. C. 66. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 6 Bing N. C. 212.
[326] Before Mr. Justice Maule. Dec. 12th, 1839. ingram v. lawson. (In an action for a libel upon a ship imputing unseaworthiness, the plaintiff may give evidence of special damage, although he has not averred it in his declaration, because a libel upon a chattel is not actionable, unless the owner sustain some damage thereby. Where a libel was published in a newspaper on the 31st of October, and the plaintiff commenced his action on the 4th of November, it was Held, that in the estimate of damages the jury need not confine themselves to the damage which accrued between the publication and the bringing of the action. Where a special plea has been demurred to, the defendant's counsel has no right at the teal to allude to the statements in it in his address to the jury.) [S. tl 2 Mood. & R. 253. Prior proceedings, 5 Bmg. N. C. 66. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 6 Bing. N. C. 212.] The declaration stated in substance that the plaintiff carried on the business of a master manner and shipowner, and was the commander and owner of the ship " Larking," which was about to sail for the East Indies, and being desirous of obtaining goods and passengers, he had inserted an advertisement in the Times newspaper, of which the defendant was the printer and publisher, notifying the time of sailing, &c., and that the defendant published of and concerning him in the way of his said business, and of and concerning the said ship, &c., a certain false, scandalous, rnah- (a) Vol. vi. of these Reports, p. 64. It was an action for a libel with pleas of justification, bat no general issue, and was tried July 6th, 1833 ; and Tindal, C. J., stated the rule to be that the plaintiff should begin in all actions for personal injuries, and also in slander and libel, notwithstanding the general issue be not pleaded, and the affirmative be on the defendant. His Lordship added, in answer to an observation made by ML D. Hill, for the defendant, " I do not see any hardship in the rule, aa it is most reasonable that the plaintiff, who brings the case into Court, should be heard firsl;, to state his complaint." See also the note (6) to the case of Anton v. Perkes, ante, p. 231. (6) See the case of Osborn atid Others v. Thompson, post, p. 337, and the authorities there collected together. 9 CAB. ft P. 327. INGRAM V, LAWSON 855 eious, and defamatory libel, &c. [setting it out] ; by means whereof he was injured m his credit, and it was believed that his ship was unfit to carry passengers or goods, and he had been prevented from obtaining goods on freight, and passengers of respectability, on the intended voyage, &c The defendant pleaded, 1st, not guilty ; 2nd, that the ship was not seaworthy , and 3rd, a special plea which was demurred to, and on which, before the trial, judgment had been given for the plaintiff (a), The advertisement referred to was in the Times newspaper of the 31st of October, 1838, and was as follows -" For Madras and Calcutta, will sail on the 28th December, the well-known fast-sailing teak ship ' Larkins,' 700 tons, Charles Ingrain, H C.S., commander, lying in the East India Docks. This ship has excellent accommodation for passengers, and carries an experienced surgeon --For freight or passage, apply to the commander, at the Jerusalem Coffee House, or to G. Haviside & Co., Sun Court, or 69, Cornhill." [327] The libel appeared in another part of the same paper, and was as follows . -" To the Editor of the Times.-Sir,-I think no apology necessary for troubling you with the following statement. I have but one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v Bourne
...M'GRATH and BOURNE. Ingram v. LawsonENR 9 C. & P. 326. Hodsoll v. Stallebrass 11 A. & E. 301. Newcastle v. Broxtowe 1 N. & M. 598. Fabrigas v. MostynUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 929. Sharpe v. BriceUNK 2 Wm, Bl. 942. Leith v. PopeUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1329. Huckle v. Money 2 Wils. 205. Chambers v. CaulfieldENR 6 ......
- Ingram v Lawson