Jones v Littler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1841 |
| Date | 16 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 831
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 171.
jones v. littler. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 16, 1841.-Slander for speaking of the plaintiff the following words: "I will bet 5 to 1 that Mr. J. (the plaintiff) was in a sponging-house for debt within the last fortnight, and I can produce the man who locked him up; the man told me so himself." And in answer to the following question from a bystander, " Do you mean to say, that Mr. J., brewer, of Rosehill, has been to a sponging house within this last fortnight for debt 1" the defendant said, " Yes, I do." The jury found that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his trade :-Held, that the action was maintainable, and that the verdict was right, as it was plain from the conversation that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in his character of a brewer.-Semble, also, that thu words were actionable independently of that, because they must necessarily affect the plaintiff in his trade and credit. ! : [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 171.] I - Slander, The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was a brewer, and that the defendant ialsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning him in the way of his trade as a brewer, the false, scandalous, malicious, and declinatory words following :-" I'll (meaning that he, the defendant would) bet 5 to 1, that Mr. Jones (meaning the plaintiff) was in a sponging-house for debt within the last fortnight, and I can produce the man who locked him up; the man told me so himself:" whereupon the said Henry Pye then asked the defendant, " Do you mean to say, that Mr. Jones, ibrewer, of Rose Hill, (meaning and describing the plaintiff), has been in a sponging-house within this last fortnight for debt?" and thereupon the defendant then replied ;to the said Henry Pye, and the said other persons then present, " Yes, I do." The cause was tried before Rolfe, B., at the last Li-[424]-verpool Assizes, when, : no special idamage having been proved, it was objected, on the authority of Ayre v. : Craven (2 Ad. & Ell. 2; 4 N. & M. 220), that the words could not be considered as spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his trade, and therefore that he ought to be nonsuited. The learned Judge refused to nonsuit, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Kelly, in Michaelmas Term last, applied for a rule to shew cause why a nonsuit : should not be entered, or why the judgment should not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew Neill and Another v Victor Kiam
...is an allegation in which loss and damage are presumed without further proof in an action for slander. As it was put in Jones v. Littler 7 M & W 423 at page 426 by Parke B.: "Here the imputation is that of insolvency, which must be injurious; for if a tradesman be incapable of paying all hi......
-
Todd v Hastings
...spoken of the plaintiff in his private character, they would have been actionable, because they must necessarily affect him in his trade. 7 M. & W. 423, Jones v. Littler. (See also 5 B. & C. 180, Whittington v. Gladwin.) However, where plaintiff declared that he was clerk of a gas company, ......
-
Evans v Harlow
...them in the way of their trade will bear an action, that will not be actionable in the case of another person." So in Jones v. Littler (7 M. & W. 423), words spoken of a tradesman, though not with a direct reference to his business, were held actionable without special damage, because the j......
-
Gallwey v Marshall
...actionable per se to say of a merchant that he is insolvent, for the imputation directly affects him in his business . June? v. Littler (7 M & W. 423) The same principle applies to charges made against a clergyman, which would subject him to deprivation. In Pemberton v. Colls (10 Q B 461) t......