Robinson, Clerk, v Jermyn and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1814 |
| Date | 07 May 1814 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 1314
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
Clerk, v. jermyn and others. Saturday, 7th May, 1814.-These words "The Rev. John Robinson, and Mr. James Robinson, inhabitants of this town, not being persons that the proprietors and annual subscribers think it proper to associate with, are excluded this room." Published by posting a paper on which they were written, purporting to be a regulation of a particular society, not to be a libel. Case for publishing a Libel.-The Declaration stated, that before and at the time, &c. there was a certain room at Southwold, called the Cassino, frequented by certain proprietors thereof and subscribers thereto, and other persons, under and subject to certain regulations. That plaintiff before and at, &c. was officiating minister of the parish of Blyford in said county. Yet said defendants, well knowing, &c. but contriving, and maliciously intending to insult, injure, degrade, and vilify the said plaintiff, so being such minister as aforesaid, and to cause it to lie suspected and believed that plaintiff was a person unfit to be associated with by the said proprietors and subscribers l PRICE, 12. ROBINSON V. JERMYN 1315 of the said Caasino, and other persons, theretofore, &c. at, &c. in one of the written regulations of the said Cassino, relating to the said plaintiff and another, wickedly, &c. published of and concerning said plaintiff, the following [12] false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, as follows ; that is to say, " the Rev. John Robinson " (meaning the said John), "and Mr. James Robinson" (meaning, &c.), " inhabitants of this town, not being persons that the proprietors or annual subscribers" (meaning the aforesaid proprietors and subscribers to the said Cassino) "think it proper to associate with, are excluded this room" (meaning, &c.). There were three other counts, varying the publication. To this declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue, and four pleas of justification to which the plaintiff demurred. Joinder in demurrer Abbot, in support of the demurrer, adverted to the causes of demurrer assigned, which he described as being rather of substance than of form; but suggested, that the defendants would prabably rely rather on the insufficiency of the declaration than on tho validity of their pleas ; and admitted, that if the declaration did not shew actionable matter, it would be unnecessary to go further into the pleadings. A rguitig therefore as if this were a demurrer to the declaration, the present question, though coming before the coort in this shape, is whether the words laid in the declaration constitute such a libel as would support an action ; and he contended, on the authority of Tkorley v. Lord Kerry (4 Taunt. ^ 55), and the cases there cited, that they would. The defendants, by the terms of the written regulation of the club...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mawe v Pigott
...v. Lord KerryENR 4 Taunt. 355. Archbishop of Tuam v. RobesonENR 5 Bing. 17. Hearne v. Stowell 12 A. & E. 719. Robinson v. JermynENR 1 Price, 11. Capel v. JonesENR 4 C. B. 267. Capel v. JonesENR 4 C. B. 259. Fray v. FrayENR 17 C. B. N. S. 603. Hoare v. Silverlock 12 Q. B. 624. Parmiter v. Co......
-
Maguire v Knox
...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. MAGUIRE v. KNOX. 1871. Libel-Inuendo-Common Law Procedure Act (Ireland), 1853, s. 65. ......
-
Sarah Mary Hoare against Silverlock
...to the [631] society. The abuse she is said to have circulated might be deserved. The contrary does not appear. In Robinson v. Jermyn (1 Price, 11), the declaration stated that there wa,s a room in Southwold called the Casino, frequented by subscribers thereto ; that plaintiff was the offic......
-
Adams v Meredew
...is not per se libellous, to be actionable it must be explained by apt and proper averments, Hex v. Home ((Jowp. 683), Robinsoii v. Jarmyn (1 Price, 11); and that an innuendo cannot enlarge the sense of a libel, but means no more than " id est," " scilicet," or " meaning," or "aforesaid," as......