R v Lambert and Perry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1810 |
| Date | 24 February 1810 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1196
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Considered, Thornton v Stephen, 1837, 2 Mood & R. 45 Referred to, Danby v Ousley, 1856, 1 H & N. 1
Saturday, Feb 24, 1810. rex v. lambert and perrv. (It is not libellous for a writer who allows the Sovereign to be solicitous for the welfare of his subjects, and who has no intention of calumniating him or of bringing his personal government into public odium, to express regret that he has taken an erroneous view of any question of foreign or domestic policy -On the trial of an information for a libel in a newspaper, the defendant has a right to have read in evidence any extract from the same paper connected with the subject of the passage charged as libellous, although disjoined from it by extraneous matter, and printed in a different character ) [Considered, Thornton v Stephen, 1837, 2 Mood R. 45 Referred to, Danby v Ousley, 1856, 1 H & N. 1 ] This was an information filed ei qfficio by the Attorney-General against the printer and proprietor of the Morning Chronicle newspaper, which charged that they " being seditious, malicious, and ill-disposed persons, and being greatly disaffected to our present sovereign lord, George the Third, &c and to his administration of the government [399] of this kingdom, and most unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously devising, designing, and intending, as much as in them lay, to bring our said lord the King and his administration of the government of this kingdom, and the persons employed by him in the administration of the government of this kingdom, into great and public hatred and contempt among all his liege subjects, and to alienate and withdraw from our said lord the King the cordial love and affection, true and due obedience, fidelity, and allegiance, of the subjects of our said lord the *1 But the sheriff may sue on a bail-bond, in a different Court from that in which the original action was brought Newman v. Faucttt, I H Bl. 631 *2 Coaches were used on the continent of Europe in the beginning of the 16th century ; but were not known in England till the middle of Elizabeth's reign. According to Stowe, they were introduced from Germany by the Earl of Arundel Vide Coward v Muberley, ante, 127, and the cases there referred to. 20AMP. 400. REX V. LAMBERT 1197 King ; on, &c at, &c. did unlawfully, seditiously, and maliciously, print, and publish and cause, &c. a certain scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel of and concerning our said lord the King, and his administration of the government of this kingdom, to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, ' What a crowd of blessings rush upon one's mind, that might be bestowed upon the country, in the event of a total change of system I Of all monarchs indeed since the Revolution, the successor of George the Third will have the finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular ' . To the great scandal, &c." The defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The "Teutonia."
...the original contract is ended, the acts of the parties must raise an implied contract before freight can become due: Osgood- v. Growing (2 Camp. 398); The Soblomstem (Law Rep. 1 A. and E. 293);'and there is no authority for giving a pro rata itineris freight: The Newport (Swa. 335); The Fo......
-
Black and Others v Joseph
...does not affect the admissibility of subsequent publication to prove or explain the meaning and innuendo. See R v Lambert and Perry (170 E.R. 1196); Bolton v O'Brien (16 L.R. Ireland 97 at pp 1O9, 118, 119). [WESSELS, J.A.: Was Danby v Ouseley (166 E.R. 1093), considered in that case?] 1931......
-
Black and Others v Joseph
...does not affect the admissibility of subsequent publication to prove or explain the meaning and innuendo. See R v Lambert and Perry (170 E.R. 1196); Bolton v O'Brien (16 L.R. Ireland 97 at pp 1O9, 118, 119). [WESSELS, J.A.: Was Danby v Ouseley (166 E.R. 1093), considered in that case?] 1931......
-
Bolton v O'Brien
...App. Cas. 741. Cooke v. Hughes 1 Ry. & Moo. 112. Mullet v. HultonENR 4 Espinasse, 248. Weaver v. LloydENR 1 C. & P. 295. Rex v. LambertENR 2 Camp. 398. Rex v. Horne Cowper, 672. Solomon v. Lawson 8 Q. B. 823. Griffiths v. Lewis Ibid. 841. Williams v. Stott 1 Cr. & Mee. 675, 687 ; cited in B......