Maloney, Esq v Bartley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 1812 |
| Date | 01 April 1812 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1357
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Attwood v. Chapman, [1914] 3 K B. 275.
[210] Gloucester, coram Wood, B. Wednesday, April 1, 1812. maloney, esq v bartley (In an action for a libel in the shape of an extrajudicml affidavit sworn before a magistrate, a person who acted as the magistrate's clerk is not bound to answer whether by the defendant's orders he wrrote the affidavit and delivered it to the magistrate, as he might thereby criminate himself ) [Referred to, Attwood v Chapman, [1914] 3 K B. 275.J This was an action against the defendant who is the master of a Subscription House at Cheltenham, of which the plaintiff was a member, for a libel, charging that the plaintiff had proposed to the defendant, that if he would allow false cards prepared by the plaintiff to be introduced into the club, the defendant should have a share of the profits Plea, not guilty. According to the opening of the plaintiff's counsel, the libel had been published by the defendant in the shape of a voluntary affidavit sworn extra] udicially before a. magistrate at Cheltenham.-Notice was given to produce the affidavit, but it was not produced. For the purpose of giving secondary evidence of its contents, Mr. Griffiths, clerk to Mr. Prum, who is clerk to the Cheltenham division of magistrates, wus then called to prove, that by the defendant's orders, he had written the affidavit, uad delivered it to the magistrate before whom it was sworn. The witness declined to answer the questions put to him respecting the affidavit, on the ground that they tended to criminate himself [211] The counsel for the plaintiff insisted, that he was bound to answer, as he coidd not be criminally bable for the contents of the affidavit He acted merely at the capacity of clerk to the magistrate He had no malice to the plaintiff, and could have no intention in what he did to scandalize any individual When a person * Vtdc Rex v Ann ticalberf, Leach, Cro Cas 706 The prisoner was tried for murder in the year 1794, before Mr Justice Lawrence, the only Judge absent from the Exchequer Chamber on the above occasion During the trial one of the jurymen was seized with a fit, and carried out of Court insensible On evidence that he was unable to return, the learned Judge discharged the jury, and ordered another to be hworu. The prisoner was convicted, and executed Vide etiani Rex v. John Stevenson, Leach, Cro Cat,. 618...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Page, Cathy Patricia v McGovern, Shane Thomas
...who have just cause for complaint, would not dare to complain for fear of infinite vexation.’ 17 InMaloney v Bartley (1812) 3 Camp 210 170 ER 1357, a libellous statement in an affidavit published by a magistrate's clerk was held to be actionable because the affidavit was sworn extrajudicial......
-
Kennedy v Hilliard (1859)
...Palmer 188. Aire v. SedgwickENR 2 Roll. Rep. 198. Ram v. LamleyENR Hut. 113. Aire v. SedgwickENR 2 Roll. Rep. 197. Maloney v. BartleyENR 3 Campb. 210. Trotman v. DunnENR 3 Campb. 211. Astley v. YoungENR 2 Burr. 807. Lake v. KingENR 1 Saund. 136. Buckley v. WoodENRENR 4 Coke, 14; S. C., 4 Cr......
-
The Rev. Thomas Little v Lord Clements
...1 T. R. 110. Dunman v. BiggsENR 1 Camp. 269. Child v. AffleakENR 9 B. & C. 403. Weller v. TokeENR 9 East, 364. Maloney v. BartleyENR 3 Camp. 210. Rex v. LeeENR 5 Esp. 123. Duncan v. ThwaitesENR 3 B. & C. 556. Rex v. Beare 1 L. Ray. 416. Blagg v. Sturt 10 Q. B. 899. Haseldine v. Grove 12 Law......
-
R v Wheater
...witness at a trial at Nisi Prius by subpoena, and to answer on oath. It was so ruled in Smith v. Bradnell, 1 Camp. 30 ; Maloney v Bartley, 3 Camp. 210 , Stockfleth v De Tastet, 4 Camp. 10 ; Gilbng v. Somerset, coram Abbott C. J., sittings after Michaelmas 1823. These cases all shew that suc......