Mayor, Company, of Manchester v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1891 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Defamation - Libel - Corporation charged with Corruption - Imputation of Misconduct of which Corporation incapable - Whether Actionable.
In an action for libel brought by a corporation, the statement of claim complained that the defendant had charged the plaintiffs with corrupt practices. It contained no allegation that the plaintiffs had suffered any special pecuniary damage in consequence of such imputation:—
Held, that, inasmuch as a corporation, as distinguished from the individuals composing it, cannot be guilty of corrupt practices, the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.
POINT of law raised on the pleadings.
In an action of libel brought by the plaintiffs, who were the Municipal Corporation of the City of Manchester, the statement of claim charged that the defendant wrote and published of the plaintiffs the following words:—
“The Gas Scandals.
“To the Editor of the Examiner and Times.
“Sir, — Manchester has lately been pitying poor Salford, and has exhibited much cheap sympathy or contempt for that misguided, misgoverned, and much-defrauded royal borough. Let Manchester look at home before it throws mud across the Irwell. Some years ago I felt it my duty to write for one of your contemporaries some half-dozen articles dealing with the city council's scandalous and abominable expenditure of about 110,000l. upon ‘our’ Victoria Hotel. That investigation brought some strange occurrences (not yet revealed by me) to my knowledge. I received visits from several gentlemen of high standing amongst us, who confided to me facts that dumbfounded me, and which shewed that the citizens lost large sums of money by the lax way in which the job was managed, and that bribery and corruption prevailed to a regrettable extent. Let me express the hope that the commission which Salford is asking for may be extended so as to include Manchester, and, if it possesses statutory power to send for persons and papers, I will undertake to bring before it witnesses and documents who will (and I deeply deplore it) prove that in the case of two, if not three, departments of our Manchester city council, bribery and corruption have existed, and done their nefarious work.
“Yours, &c., S. Norbury Williams.”
The statement of claim further alleged that the defendant meant, and was understood to mean thereby, that bribery and corruption existed in three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
...appears to have been the foundation for the decision by a Divisional Court in the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester v. Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94 but more fully reported in [1891] 63 L.T. 805. The Divisional Court held, on a preliminary point of law, that an action for libel was not......
-
Bognor Regis Urban District Council v Campion
...p. 175D-F). National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian [1946] K.B. 81, C.A. applied. Manchester Corporation v. Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94, D.C. distinguished. 1 Local Government Act 1933, s. 31: "(1) For every urban district there shall be an urban district council consisting......
-
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
...your Lordships' House. 6There are only two reported cases in which an English local authority has sued for libel. The first is Manchester Corporation v. Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94: 63 L.T. 805. The defendant had written a letter to a newspaper alleging that "in the case of two if not three ......
- Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association)
-
DEMURRER
...J.S.C. in Aina v. Trustees of Railway Corporation Pensions Fund (1970) 1 All N.L.R. 281 at P. 283; Mayor etc. of Manchester v. Williams (1891) 1 Q.B. 94." - Per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. in Mobil v. I.A.L., 36 INC. Suit No. S.C. 106/1999; (2000) 4 S.C. (Pt. I) 85 at 98; (2000) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 65......