R v Veley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1867 |
| Date | 01 January 1867 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 930
Nisi Prius
[1117] Court of Queen's Bench, London Sittings, Hilary Term, 1867, Guildhall, cor am Cockburn, C J. regina v. veley. ^A letter published by an attorney honestly, in vindication of the character of a client against charges published and circulated against the client by the prosecutor, is privileged. On an indictment for an alleged libel it appeared that the libel was contained in a letter published by the defendant, an attorney, in answer to charges against a client, which had been published by the prosecutor, and it described the charges as false and wicked :-held, that if the letter was published honestly, to vindicate the client's character, and was such as the circumstances might reasonably warrant, the publication was privileged or protected.) Indictment for libel. The alleged libel was in a letter written by the defendant, an attorney, and by him caused to be inserted and published in the " Chelmsford Chronicle," in answer to statements against a client of his contained in a report of an ex parte application on the part of the prosecutor at a police court; which was thus set out in the indictment by way of inducement: - " ' The Times,' July 7th, 1866 -At Bow Street, Mr. Montagu Williams, the barrister, made an application to Mr. Vaughan for a summons against a clergyman oj the Church of England, residing in Essex, and chaplain of a gaol, and also against a raairied couple who keep a lodging-house in Bloomsbury, charging them with conspiracy. The complainant, Mr. Williams stated, is an architect and surveyor, residing at Penge, Surrey, and carrying on business in Ncwington , he is the son-in-law of the clergyman, being married to his daughter. He had lived with his wife for several yea,rs and had a family, without the slightest interruption to their domestic happiness. On the 1st of June he left home as usual to come to town to attend to his ordinary business On his return he found that his wife had left home. All inquiries proving fruitless, he gave information to the local police, and also to the Detective Office, Scotland Yard A few days afterwards he received a letter from his father-in-law. He stated that he had been telegraphed to from a lodging-house in Bloomsbury, had found his daughter there, and had brought her home to his own house. A medical man had seen her and had declared her to be a dangerous lunatic, and, as she was now incapable of being removed, she must remain under his care for the present. A few days later a letter was received from the wife, which had been delayed some days after the date, addressing her husband in the most affectionate terms, and expressing regret for the wrong she had done him. All the complainant's efforts to obtain access to his wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Donoghue v Hussey
...334. Whitely v. AdamsENR 15 C. B. N. S. 392. Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. & F. 608. Koeing v. RitchieENR 3 F. & F. 413. Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117. Wason v. WalterELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 73. Wrigh v. WoodgateENR 2 C. M. & R. 573. Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 181. Davis v. SneadELR L. R......
-
Hort v Reade
...B. 396. Gourley v. PlimsollELR L. R. 8 C. P. 362. Page v. Bacon 4 Ir. Jur. 125. Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. & F. 608. Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117. Laughton v. The Bishop of Sodor and Man L. R. 4 P. C. App. 495. Clinton v. Henderson 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. 43. Lucan v. SmithENR 1 H. & N. 4......
-
Dwyer v Esmonde
...Armstrong v. TurquandUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 32. Maher v. PurcellUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 133. Fitzpatrick v. Pine Ibid. 32. Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117. Cooke v. WildesENR 5 E. & B. 328. O'Donoghue v. HusseyUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 124. Sodor and ManELR L. R. 4 P. C. 508. Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. ......