Maitland and Others against Goldney and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1802 |
| Date | 25 June 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 431
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
maitland and others against goldney and another. Friday, June 25th, 1802. In a justification of slander, that the defendant named the original author of it at the time, it is not sufficient to allege that the original slanderer used such and such words or to that effect; although in the libel declared on the defendant stated that another had spoken the same slanderous words of the plaintiff or words to that effect: but the defendant must give the very words used, tho' it be only necessary to prove some material part of them.- Qu. Whether a defendant can by naming the original author justify the publishing in writing slanderous words spoken by such other; especially after knowing that they w^re unfounded 1 In an action on the case, the first count of the declaration stated, that whereas the plaintiffs before March 1800 exercised in copartnership the trade of merchants and dealers in wool, and conducted themselves with honesty in such trade, and delivered just and true accounts to their customers, &c. and before the publishing the libel after-mentioned enjoyed in their said trade a good name and credit and the confidence of their customers : and whereas one Henry Guy, before the said March and until the time of composing and publishing the libels hereinafter first and secondly mentioned (a)i 5 Term Eep. 327. (J)1 Ib. 447. ()2 5 Term Eep. 205. (6)2 Burr. S. C. 653. (c) Ib. 662. (d) 2 Term Eep. 453, and vide Rex v. Odiham, ib. 622, S. P. 432 MAINLAND V. aOLDNEF 2 EAST, 427. was a customer of the plaintiffs in their said trade, and the plaintiffs had always delivered to him just and true accounts, &e.: and whereas the plaintiffs had a long time before, &c. to wit on 1st March 1800, made out and sent to Guy a true account of certain dealings between him and them in their trade, upon the receipt of which account Guy afterwards hastily and rashly uttered certain expressions importing that he was dissatisfied with the said account, and very much disapproved thereof, but afterwards and long before the composing and publishing of the libel (in question) the conduct of the plaintiffs with respect to the said account, &c. was fully explained and justified to the said H. Guy, and he was fully [427] satisfied therewith, and thenceforth, until, and at the time of publishing that libel, reposed his entire esteem and confidence in the plaintiffs in their said trade, and continued to deal with them, &c. of all which premises the defendants afterwards and before the publication of the libel hereinafter next mentioned had notice ; yet the defendants well knowing the premises, but maliciously contriving and intending to injure the plaintiffs in their said trade, and to cause them to be believed to be guilty of dishonesty and making false accounts, &c. on the 14th December 1801, at &c. unlawfully and maliciously composed and published a certain libel of and concerning the said plaintiffs, and of and concerning the said account so by them made out and sent to the said H. Guy, and of and concerning the said H. Guy, and the aforesaid expressions so by him uttered, to the tenor and effect following, viz. " Thomas Goldney of Chippenham, &c. and Harry Goldney of &c. clothiers, severally make oath and say; and first the said H. Goldney for himself saith, that some time in the latter end of March 1800, he was present at the White Hart Inn in Chippenham aforesaid, and then and there heard Henry Guy of Chippenham aforesaid, clothier, publicly declare that he had just received (the plaintiffs') account, &c. that the account was near 4001. less than he expected, and that their (meaning the plaintiffs') conduct, was worse than robbing on the highway, or words to that effect; and that he would immediately go to London and bring an action against them ; and this deponent T. Goldney for himself saith, that soon after the said H. Guy had received his account from the house of (the plaintiffs), as this deponent believes, the said H. Guy came to this deponent's countingrhouse at Chippenham aforesaid, and then and there asked this deponent, T. Goldney, whether [428] be had received his account from (the plaintiffs), and this deponent replied that he had received bis account; and the said H. Guy asked him the said T. Goldney how his account was, and said that they (meaning the plaintiffs) had robbed him of near 4001., that it was as bad as robbing on the highway, and that he would arrest the house and drop all kind of connexion with them ; or words to that purport and effect." The second count only differed from the first in not stating that the words spoken by Guy were " hastily and rashly uttered;" and in only stating that Guy was afterwards satisfied with the account, without stating that the plaintiffs' conduct was justified to him. The third count charged the libel to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too
...380 (refd) Harrison v Bevington 8 Car & P 708; 173 ER 683 (folld) Jenkins v Phillips 9 Car & P 766; 173 ER 1045 (refd) Maitland v Goldney 2 East 426; 102 ER 431 (folld) Rainy v Bravo (1872) LR 4 PC 287 (folld) Seymour v Butterworth 3 F & F 372; 176 ER 166 (refd) Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All E......
- Tay Boon Too and Workers' party v A-G of Singapore; Workers' party
-
CITY TEAM MEDIA SDN BHD vs SARAVANAN A/L MURUGAN
...173 ER 683). It is not sufficient for them to state what they conceive to be the substance or effects of the words (Maitland v Goldney 102 ER 431)….(emphasis Here the slander alleged was spoken in Hokkien but the words complained of were set out in English in the amended statement of claim.......
-
Sir W. De Crespigny v Wellesley
...But if the rule be shewn to be destitute of authority, the decisions resting on it must fall to the ground; and in Maitland v. Goldney (2 East, 426), Lord Elleuborough held, that one who repeated slander, after knowing it to be unfounded, could not justify it by having named his author at t......