Parmiter v Coupland and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Exchequer |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 340
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 202; 4 Jur. 701. Discussed, Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 A. C. 762; M'Inerney v. "Clareman" Printing and Publishing Company, [1903] 2 Ir. R. 370, 399. Referred to, Cox v. Lec, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 290; Harwood v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 628; O'Brien Marquis of Salisbury, 1889, 6 T. L. R. 133; Monson v. Tussaud, [1894] 1 Q. B. 684.
[105] parmiter v. coupland and another. Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury to aay whether the publication in question falls within that definition; and, as incidental to that, whether it is calculated to injure the character of the plaintiff. -A publication may be a libel on a private person, which would not be any libel on a person in a public capacity ; but any imputation of unjust or corrupt motives is equally libellous in either case. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 202; 4 Jur. 701. Discussed, Capital and Counties Bank v. Heniy, 1882, 7 A. C. 762 ; M'Inerney v. " Clareman" Printing and Publishing Company, [1903] 2 Ir. B. 370, 399. Referred to, Cox v. Lee, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 290; Haneood v. Harrism, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 628; O'Brien v. Marquis of Salisbury, 1889, 6 T. L. R. 133 ; Mmiscm v. Tussavd, [1894] 1 Q. B. 684.] Thfa was an action on the ease for a series of libels published of the plaintiff, the late m,yor of the borough of Winchester, in the " Hampshire Advertiser " newspaper1, between the 17th of November, 1838, and the 2nd of March, 1839, imputing to him partial and corrupt conduct, and ignorance of his duties, as mayor and justice of the peace for the borough. The defendants pleaded not guilty. At the trial before Coleridge, J., at the last Winchester Assizes, the learned Judge, in the course of his summing up, stated to the jury that there was a difference with regard to censures on public- and on private persons ; that the character of persons acting in a public capacity was, to a certain extent public property, and their conduct might be more freely commented on than that of other persons : and having told the jury what, in point of law, constituted a libel, he left it to them to say whether the publications in question were an.4w.lM. PARMITER V. COTTPLAND 341 calculated...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Dr Clarence Edwin v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd
-
M'Inerney v The "Clareman" Printing and Publishing Company
... ... R. at p. 137. Odger v. MortimerUNK 28 L. T. (N. S.) 472. Parmiter v. CouplandENR 6 M. & W. 105. Praed v. GrahamELR 27 Q. B. D. 53 ... was a few made purchases only to throw them up again, and the sale proved abortive until another auctioneer, Mr. Dillon, Ennis, resold on issuing fresh advertisements and posters. ' (Signed), PAT ... : Parmiter v. Coupland (4) ; Levi v. Mane (5) and Hakewell v. Ingram (6). In Odger v. Mortimer (7), which was decided in ... ...
-
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...and approved in the past. (1) [1] The classic definition is that given by Lord Wensleydale (then Parke B) in Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105 at 108, 151 ER 340 at 341–342. He said that in cases of libel it was for the judge to give a legal definition of the offence which he defined a......
-
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton
...and see Tolley v J S Fry & Sons Ltd [1930] 1 KB 467 at 479 per Greer LJ. 7Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105 at 108 per Parke B; [ 151 ER 340 at 8Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461 at 477 per Scrutton LJ; Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 at 1240 p......
-
Defamation law and free speech: Reynolds v. Times Newspapers and the English media.
...University of Melbourne) (on file with the University of Melbourne Library). (67.) Parmiter v. Coupland, [1840] 6 M & W 105; 151 E.R. 340. (68.) Sim v. Stretch, [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237, (69.) Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures, [1934] 50 T.L.R. 581, 587. (70.) GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER, supra......
