Popham v Pickburn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1862 |
| Date | 13 February 1862 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 730
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. Ex. 133; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 179, 10 W. R. 324; 5 L. T. 846 Applied, Purcell v. Sowler, 1877, 2 C. P D. 222
popham v. pickburn Feb. 13, 1862.-If a report made by a medical officer of health to a vestry board, in puisuance of the Metropolis Local Management Act (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120), contains libellous matter, a newspaper proprietor is not privileged in publishing it, though without any comment -Quaere. Whether, after the publication of such a report by the vestry boaid, it is competent to others to republish it with or without reasonable comment [S. C. 31 L. J. Ex. 133; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 179 , 10 W. R. 324; 5 L. T. 846 Applied, Purcdi v. Smaler, 1877, 2 C. P D. 222 ] Libel The declaration stated, that the defendant falsely and maliciously printed and pubbshed of the plaintiff, in relation to his trade and business of a chemist and druggist, in a newspaper called the Cleikenwell News, the words following, that is to say: " I communicated some time since with the Registrar-General upon the giving of false medical certificates by Mr. Pophaiu of Exmouth Street" (meaning the plaintiff). " The Registrar has requested the district Registrar to warn this person I beg, however, to advise the vestry to communicate with the Secretary of State, so thiit a prosecution for forgery may be instituted. It is most important to the welfare of this district that this proceeding be put a decisive stop to." Whereby the plaintiff's credit and reputation were damaged, and the plaintiff was injured in his trade and business of a chemist and druggist, and lost the custom of divers customers. Plea: not guilty. There were also pleas of justification on the ground that the alleged libellous matter was true Issues thereon. At the trial, before Wilde, B, at the Middlesex Sittings, in Trinity Term, 1861, it appeared that the plaintiff was a chemist and druggist, carrying on business in Exmouth Street, Clerkenwell, and that the defendant was the legisteied proprietor of a newspaper called the Clerkenwell Afeut , which was published twice a week, at the 7 B. a N. 892 POPHAM V. PICKBURN 731 price of [892] one halfpenny, and had a large circulation in the district. The libel was published in the defendant's newspaper on the 27th February, 1861, in an article purporting to be a report of the proceedings of the parish vestry. The article was headed aa follows :- "CLERKENWELL VESTRY BOARD 11 The usual Board was held on Thursday week; Mr. Commissioner Webb in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed." Then followed an account of the business transacted, under different headings, such as "financial Statement," "Charge of the Imperial G-as Company," "Metropolitan Board's Precept for its own Expenses," &c. Under the head "Medical Grocer's Report," was the libel set out in the declaration, which formed a portion of the report of Dr. Griffith, the Medical Officer of Health to the Vestry Board, in pursuance of the Metropolis Local Management Act (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120). It was admitted that the defendant's publication was a correct report of the document read at the Vestry Board. The defendant gave evidence in support of the pleas of justification. It was contended on behalf of the defendant, that he was privileged in publishing the report by the Metropolis Local Management Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock
...Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62 at 67–68. 34Popham v Pickburn (1862) 7 H & N 891 at 898 [ 158 ER 730 at 733] per Wilde 35Cole v The Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62 at 67 per Ferguson J (Street CJ......
-
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock
...Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62 at 67–68. 34Popham v Pickburn (1862) 7 H & N 891 at 898 [ 158 ER 730 at 733] per Wilde 35Cole v The Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62 at 67 per Ferguson J (Street CJ......
- Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd
- Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
-
Fair Comment
...with a comment. Galley, para 713, quotes the following example, referring to and quoting from Popham v. Pickburn (1862), 7 H. & N. 891, 158 E.R. 730: Thus where the defendant published in his newspaper a report of a medical officer of health, which asserted that the plaintiff, a chemist and......