McPherson v Daniels
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 448
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 251; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 14. Applied, Watkin v. Hall, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 400. Referred to, Johnson v. Emerson, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 373; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 63.
[263] M'PHERSON against daniels. 1829. In an action for slander, for words spoken of the plaintiff in his trade, importing a direct assertion made by defendant, that the plaintiff was insolvent, the defendant pleaded, that one T. W. spoke and published to the defendant the same words, and that the defendant, at the time of speaking and publishing them, declared that he had heard and been told the same from and by the said T. W.: Held, upon demurrer, that this plea was bad, first, because it did not confess and avoid the charge mentioned in the declaration, the words in the declaration importing an unqualified assertion made by the defendant in the words stated in the declaration, and the words used in the plea, importing that the defendant mentioned the fact on the authority of T. W. Secondly, because it did not give the plaintiff any cause of action against T. W., inasmuch as it did not allege that T. W. spoke the words falsely and maliciously. Thirdly, because it is not an answer to an action for oral slander for a defendant to shew that he heard it from another, and named the person at the time, without shewing that the defendant believed it to be true, and that he spoke the words on a justifiable occasion. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ey. 251; 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 14. Applied, Watkin v. Hall, 1868, L. R 3 Q. B. 400. Referred to, Johnson v. Emerson, 1871, L. K. 6 Ex. 373; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 63.] Declaration for slander stated, that the plaintiff before the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, and from thence had been and still was a coach proprietor, and sold and disposed of cattle for divers persons for commission, and that he had never been suspected to be insolvent, or unable or unwilling to pay his just debts; that defendant contriving, and wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff, and to cause it to be suspected and believed by his neighbours that the plaintiff was poor, and in indigent and bad circumstances, and incapable of paying his just debts, and debts to be by him contracted, and thereby to injure him in his trade and business, falsely and maliciously spoke and published in the hearing and presence of divers good and worthy subjects of this realm of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning and relating to him in his trade or business of a coach proprietor, the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory words following, that is to say,-" His (meaning the said plaintiffs) horses have been seized from the coach (meaning the said plaintiff's coach), on the road, he (meaning the said plaintiff) has been arrested, and the bailiffs are in his (meaning the [264] said plaintiff's) house," thereby then and there meaning and intending that the said plaintiff was in bad and indigent circumstances, and incapable of paying his just debts. By means of the committing of which said grievances by the defendant, he the plaintiff was greatly injured in his good name, &c.; and also by means of the premises, one Morrison, who before the committing of the said grievances was about to send, and otherwise would have sent divers, to wit, eleven head of cattle to the plaintiff, for the purpose of being sold and disposed of by the plaintiff for Morrison for commission and reward payable to the plaintiff in that behalf, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, wholly refused and declined sq to do, and thereby the plaintiff lost and was deprived of the commission which would have been payable by Morrison to the plaintiff. Plea, that before the speaking and publishing of the several words in the declaration mentioned, and therein supposed to have been spoken and published by the said defendant, of and concerning the said plaintiff, and of and concerning and relating to him in his trade or business 10B.&C.265. M'PHEBSON 17. DANIELS 449 of a coach proprietor, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. one T. W. Woor of Swaffham, in the county of Norfolk, spoke and published the following words to the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning and relating to him in his trade or business of a coach proprietor, that is to say.-" His (meaning the said plaintiff's) horses have been seized from the coach, (meaning the plaintiff's coach) on the road; he has been arrested, and the bailiffs are in his house;" thereby then and there meaning that the plaintiff was in bad and indigent circumstances, and incapable of paying his just debts. And the defendant further saith, that at the time of speaking and publishing [265] the said several words in the declaration as therein mentioned, he the defendant also declared, in the presence and hearing of the same persons in whose presence and hearing the said words were so spoken by him the defendant, that he had heard and been told the same from and by the said T. W. Woor of Swaffham, in the county of Norfolk; wherefore he the defendant, at the said time when, &c. in the said declaration mentioned, did speak and publish of and concerning the plaintiff the said several words in the said declaration mentioned, as he lawfully might for the cause aforesaid. General demurrer and joinder. The Court called upon Platt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter & Callaghan v Gerald Duckworth & Company Ltd & Blom-Cooper
...DOHME 1988 ILRM 629 W V IRELAND 1997 2 IR 141 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 O'BRIEN V KEOGH 1972 IR 144 M'PHERSON V DANIELS 1829 10 B & C 263 109 ER 448 ADAM V WARD 1917 AC 309 1916–1917 AER 157 HORROCKS V LOWE 1974 1 AER 665 BELL-BOOTH GROUP LTD V AG 1989 3 NZLR 148 BALFOUR V AG 1991 1 NZLR ......
-
Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
...it professed to state the speech of a member of Parliament, the variance was held fatal. 13 East, 554, Bell v. Byrne. [See also 10 B. & C. 263, M'Phersm v. Daniels. 5 Mann. & R. 251. S. C. 2 Mann. & Gr. 561, Smith v. Knowelden. 2 Scott, N. E. 657, S. C.] K. B. xiv.-5 130 LAKE V. KING 1 VMS.......
-
Craft v Boite
...necessarily confesses that such sense is correctly imputed; and if the defendant disputes this, bo must do so under the general issue. 10 B. & C. 263, M'Pherson v. Daniels. 5 Mann. & E. 251, 286 CRAFT V. BOITE 1 WMS. SAUND. 244. own wrong ivithout such cause, as is by him the said Joseph Bo......
-
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
...in the case of publication in a written or permanent form, is he required to prove he has been damaged. But, as Littledale J. said in McPherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263, 272, 'the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not o......
-
Libel: Its Purpose and Reform
...43 above, 30, McNamara, n 32 above,38–42.48 See Rolph, ibid, 22 for many 19th century authorities, beginning with M’Pherson vDaniels (1829)10 B&C 263, 109 ER 448.See also the slander per se cases, eg Allsop vAllsop (1860)H&N534and Roberts vRoberts (1864)5B&S384.49 See Post, n 43 above, 695.......