Lumby v Allday
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 148 E.R. 1434
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. 217; 9 L. J. Ex. (O. S.) 62. Considered, Alexander v. Jenkins, [1892] 1 Q. B. 797. Followed, Miller v. David, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 125.
lumby v. allday. Exch. of Pleas. 1831.-Words to be actionable as spoken of a man in his office must be spoken of him in reference to his character or conduct in such office, arid must impute to him the want of some qualification for, or misconduct in, his office. - Where, therefore, a declaration stated that the plaintiff was clerk of a gas company, and that the defendant spoke of him these words : " You are a fellow, a disgrace to the town, unfit to hold your situation, for your conduct with whores," &c.:-Held, that the words were not actionable. -Where that which is laid as the cause of action in the declaration is proved at the trial, the plaintiff'cannot be nonsuited, upon the ground that the facts charged do not disclose a cause of action. [ti. C. 1 Tyr. 217 ; 9 L. J. Ex. (O. S.) 62. Considered, Alexander v. Jenkiw, [1892J 1 Q. B. 797. Followed, Miller v. David, 1874, L. E. 9 C. P. 125.] Action for words. The first count of the declaration, after the usual inducement of the plaintiff's good conduct, stated that, before the time of the speaking and publishing the several false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory words by the defendant, the plaintiff was, and from thence hitherto had been and still was, clerk to a certain incorporated company, to wit, the Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company, and as such clerk had always behaved and conducted himself with great diligence, industry, and propriety, by means whereof he was acquiring gain and profits, &c.:; yet, defendant intending, &c., arid to cause it to be believed by the neighbours and subjects, and the persons composing the said company, that the said plaintiff' was of a bad character, arid unfit for his situation of clerk to the said Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company, and an improper per-[302] son to be employed by the said company, and to cause him to be deprived of and lose his situation, il'c. &a., to wit, on &c., at &c., in a certain discourse which the said defendant then and there had with the said plaintiff', of and concerning the said plaintiff', and of and concerning the premises, in the presence and hearing of divers good and worthy subjects of this realm, then and there, in the presence and hearing of the said last mentioned subjects, falsely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mounson v Redshaw
...the record, and might be taken advantage of by motion in arrest of judgment, or writ of error. 1 Camp. 256, Sadler v. liobins. [But see 1 Cr. & J. 301, Lumby v. Allday.] However, the nonsuit is so far considered the act of the plaintiff, that the Court cannot order a nonsuit to be entered a......
-
McMullan v Mulhall and Farrell
... ... in Lumby v. Allday (4) :"Every authority ... either shows the want of some general raquisite, as honesty, capacity, fidelity, or the like; or connects the ... ...
-
Dwyer v Meehan
...Hartley v. FlemingENR 8 T. R. 130. Galwey v. MarshallENR 9 Exch. 294. Connors v. JusticeUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 451. Lumby v. AlldayENR 1 Cr. & J. 301. Corcoran v. CorcoranUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 272. Louthee v. DennyENR 1 Exch. 196. Roberts v. RobertsENR 5 B. & S. 384. Riding v. Smith 1 Ex. Div. 91......
- Ronald v Harper