Richard Barrett, - Plaintiff in Error; William Long, - Defendant in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1851 |
| Date | 02 June 1851 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 10 E.R. 154
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. v. 618, 651; xi. 478. S.C. below, 7 C.L.R. Ir. 439; 8 C.L.R. Ir. 331. On point as to innuendo, adopted in Bolton v. O'Brien, 1885, 16 L.R. Ir. 97, at p. 114; affd. ib. 483; and cf. Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 A.C. 741; Darby v. Ouseley, 1856, 1 H. and N. 1.
Libel - Innuendo - Malice - Pleading - Evidence - Challenge of Juryman.
[395] RICHARD BARRETT,-Plaintiff in Error; WILLIAM LONG,-Defendant in Error [Feb. 18, June 2, 1851]. [Mews' Dig. v. 618, 651; xi. 478. S.C. below, 7 C.L.R. Ir. 439; 8 C.L.R. Ir. 331. On point as to innuendo, adopted in Solton v. O'Brien, 1885, 16 L.R. Ir. 97, at p. 114; affd. ib. 483; and cf. Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 A.C. 741; Darby v. Ouseley, 1856, 1 H. arid N. 1.] Libel-Innuendo-Malice-Pleading-Evidence-Challenge of Juryman. In an action for a libel in a Dublin newspaper, the first count, after the usual prefatory averments, proceeded thus: " What possessed Lord H. (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), if he knew anything about the country, or was not under the spell of vile and treacherous influence, to make his first visit, and that carefully puffed, to Long's, the coachmaker (meaning thereby the said plaintiff), the other day? If mere trade was his (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant's) object, he had several respectable houses open to him (meaning thereby that the house and place of business 154 BARRETT V. LONG [1851] III H.L.C., 396 of the said plaintiff was not respectable, and that the said visit was paid thereto for political objects):" Held, that the innuendo did not enlarge the sense of these words, which were fully capable of the meaning given to them. The third count repeated the same words, and accompanied them with the following innuendo: "(meaning thereby, that the house of business of the said plaintiff was not a respectable house in the trade, and that the plaintiff himself was of such a character, that he would not be visited in the way of his trade and business except from some political, or party, or other improper motive):" Held, that the words were capable of the meaning thus attributed to them; but that if the innuendo was more extensive than the words, it might be rejected as repugnant and void, and that the words, being libellous, were actionable without its aid. In an action of libel, the defendant pleaded the general issue, and also a plea under the 6 and 7 Viet. c. 96, denying actual malice, and stating an apology. On the trial, the plaintiff, in order to prove malice, tendered in evidence other publications of the defendant, going back above six years before the publication complained of: Held, that these publications were admissible in evidence. A town councillor is, by the 3 and 4 Viet. c. 108, disqualified from being a special juryman. The name of a town councillor stood on a special jury-list after it had been reduced: Held, that under the Irish Jury Act, 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 91, he was liable to challenge for this disqualification when about to be sworn. [396] The right of challenge against a juryman is a common-law right, which cannot be taken away except by the express terms of a statute, and quaere, whether it is taken away by the 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 91, except in cases where corporate bodies are parties, and kindred or affinity with a member of the corporate body is the ground of challenge. It is not taken away by the effect of the 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 91, in respect of a disqualification created since that statute. Where a challenge in respect of such disqualification was made after reducing a special jury, it was held not to be necessary to allege that the disqualification had arisen since the jury was reduced. The writ of error in this case was brought to reverse a judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas, in Ireland, and affirmed in the Court of Exchequer there. The action was in the form of case, and was brought by William Long against Richard Barrett, for a libel published in the Pilot newspaper of the 19th day of August, 1844. The declaration contained four counts, varying the mode in which the alleged libel was stated. The first count, after stating that Long was a coachmaker, in Mary Street, Dublin, that in the way of his trade he had frequent dealings with persons of high character, without reference to politics, that, for a long time before, he had been a justice of the peace of the county of the city of Dublin, and had acted on the grand juries of the said county of the city, and as a special juror at Nisi prius in Dublin, and that before the publication of the libel Lord Heytesbury, the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had given him an order for a carriage, averred that Barrett, intending to injure him in said trade and business, and in his credit and reputation, and to prevent persons from dealing with him, especially members of her Majesty's executive in Ireland, [397] published in the Pilot newspaper of and concerning him, and of and concerning him in the way of his trade, the following libel:-"What possessed Lord Heytesbury (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), if he knew anything about the country, or was not under the spell of vile and treacherous influence, to make his first visit, and that carefully puffed, to Long's, the coachmaker (meaning thereby the said plaintiff), the other day; if mere trade was his (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant's) object, he (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant) had several respectable houses open to him (meaning there- 155 IIIH.L.C., 398 BARRETT V. LONG [1851] by that the house and place of business of the said plaintiff was not respectable, and that the said visit was paid thereto for political objects) ; but Long (meaning thereby the plaintiff) was a noted juror of the sort much wanted (meaning thereby that the plaintiff was known to be a person who had acted, and would act, dishonestly as a juryman); Long (meaning thereby the plaintiff) was a feeble, talentless, vulgar, as a matter of course, but very virulent, member of the old exploded corporation of Dublin; not one of whose members has ever yet been returned, even by the Conservatives, to the new corporation, and therefore it was that the Camarilla instigated their dupe and predestined victim (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant) to go to Long's (meaning thereby the coachmaking establishment of the said plaintiff in Mary Street aforesaid), in order to commit him (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant) still further with the people. We take a review of these passing events (meaning, amongst other events, the visit of the said Lord Lieutenant to the said establishment of the said plaintiff), trifling, perhaps, in themselves, but indicative of what are no trifles, that, at least, in going the high road of execration, Heytes-bury (meaning thereby the said Lord Lieutenant) may see his [398] way, and have no excuse that he erred by accident or ignorance of the facts which indicate and influence injustice and misrule, and in their train public execration." The second count averred that the defendant, intending to injure Long in his trade, business, and reputation, published the libel therein set forth of and concerning Long. It then set forth the libel stated in the first count, leaving out all the innuendoes, except those averring Long to be the person alluded to in the libel. The third count was as follows:-"And whereas Long, so being such coach-maker, and so exercising the said trade, as in the introductory part of this declaration mentioned, to wit, at Dublin, in the county of the city of Dublin, before the composing and publishing of the libel hereinafter next mentioned, had in the course of his trade and business received an order from the said Lord Lieutenant to supply the said Lord Lieutenant with a carriage, to wit, at Dublin aforesaid, in the county aforesaid; yet the said defendant further contriving to injure the plaintiff in said trade and business, afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1844, to wit, at Dublin aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did falsely and maliciously compose and publish, and cause and procure to be composed and published, a certain other false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning the said plaintiff in his said trade and business, and of and concerning the said plaintiff, containing therein certain false, malicious, and libellous matter of and concerning him the said plaintiff, in his said trade and business, as aforesaid, and of and concerning him the said plaintiff, to the tenor and effect following; that is to say, ' What possessed Lord Heytesbury, if he knew anything about the country...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v Mcgregor
-
Tam Heung Man v The Incorporated Owners Of Lung Poon Court (Blocks A-f)
...plaintiff can be relied upon as evidence of malice, even though they are not the subject of the action: Gatley, §32.39; Barrett v Long (1858) 3 HLC 395; 10 ER 154 per Parke B at 191. In the present case, apart from the Notices, the IO had issued many other notices making false and defamator......
-
Maguire v Knox
...MAGUIRE and KNOX. Watkin v. HallELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 396. Barrett v. LongENR 3 H. L. C. 395. Williams v. StottENR 1 Cr. & M. 675. Harvey v. FrenchENR 1 Cr. & M. 11. Hunter v. SharpeENR 4 F. & F. 983. Robinson v. JermynENR 1 Price, 11. Libel Inuendo 408 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Exchequer. MAGU......
-
Bolton v O'Brien
...Ibid. 854. Usher v. DanseyENR 4 M. & S. 94. Jones v. M'GovernUNK Ir. R. 1 C. L. 681. Daines v. HartleyENR 3 Exch. 200. Barrett v. Long 3 H. L. Cas. 395. Capital and Counties Bank v. HentyELR 7 App. Cas. 741. Cooke v. Hughes 1 Ry. & Moo. 112. Mullet v. HultonENR 4 Espinasse, 248. Weaver v. L......