Sir W. De Crespigny v Wellesley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1829 |
| Date | 09 February 1829 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1112
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 695; 7 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 100.
[392] sir W. de crespigny v. wellesley. Feb. 9, 1829. [S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 695; 7 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 100.] In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the Defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author's name. To the ninth count of a declaration for libel, the Defendant, after pleading the general issue, pleaded, secondly, As to the publishing, and causing and procuring to be published, the following parts of the said supposed libel of and concerning the said Plaintiff, in the said ninth count of the said declaration mentioned, with the intent and meaning therein mentioned; to wit, " Mr. De Crespigny told Mr. Wellesley he was wrong in supposing he had spoken to his father, Sir W. De Crespigny (meaning the stid Plaintiff): he had written a letter to him, and he had his (meaning the said Plaintiff's) answer, in which he admitted the fact; and that his wife, Mrs. De Crespigny and himself had the letter; that all the family knew of the circumstance (intimacy), that his poor brother William, who is dead, was extremely jealous of his father, (meaning the said Plaintiff), and had been turned out of his house; that his mother had told him that a child had been born, and that it had been her conclusion that trig brother iHerbert had spoken to his father (meaning to the said Plaintiff) upon the subject, who replied that he (meaning the said Plaintiff) entreated that so distressing a srjbject might not be again mentioned to him (meaning to the said Plaintiff): the Rev. Mr. De Crespigny told Mr. Wellesley he thought he was quite SBIHO. 393. DE CRESPIGNY V. WELLESLEY 1113 right not to allow bis children to remain with people so infamously connected : Mr. De Crespigny informed Mr. Wellesley he had seen the Miss Longs yesterday at their house in Berkshire, and that he had direetly accused Miss Emma Long with her intrigue, upon which she got so confused that she left the room in the greatest embarrassment; that he [393] then stated to Miss Dora Long, that Miss Emma Long had intrigued with his father (meaning with the said Plaintiff), and that Mr. Wellesley (meaning the said Defendant) intended to publish the whole story, unless they Immediately gave up his children : Miaa Long replied, that she had nothing to do with her sister's intrigue, and she must be responsible for her own conduct; but that no one would believe what Mr. Wellesley said: Mr. De Crespigny assured Mr. Wellegley that she never denied her sister's having committed the fault; Mr. De Crespigny told her his father had confessed it; (not denied it); to which she made no reply, but put herself into a violent passion, and said she did not wish to see any of Mr. Wellesley'a friends within her house :-notwithstanding such declaration, she invited Mr. Da Creapigny to dine with them, and to sleep at Binneld House : the above minutes were shewn to Capt, De Brooke, and on the part of the Kev. H. C. De Crespigny he admitted them twice to be correct, with the exception of one word, viz. that for confessed it, the words not denied it ought to be substituted:" the said Defendant, by leave of the Court here for this purpose first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such caae made and provided, says, that the said Plaintiff ought not to have and maintain his aforesaid action thereof against him, because he says, that before the publishing of the said parts of the said supposed libel in the said ninth count of the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 5th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1827, at, &c. the said Rev. H. C. De Crespigny told the said Defendant that he was wrong in supposing that he the said H. C. De Crespigny had spoken to his father, Sir W. D. Crespigny : he had written a letter to him, and that he had his (meaning the said Plaintiff's) answer, in which he (meaning the said Plaintiff) admitted the fact; and that [394] his (the said H. C. De Crespigny's) wife and himself had the letter; that all the family knew of the intimacy; that his poor brother William, who was dead, was extremely jealous of his father (meaning the said Plaintiff), and had been turned out of his house; that bis brother Herbert had spoken to his father (meaning the said Plaintiff) upon the subject, who had replied, that he (meaning the said Plaintiff) entreated that so distressing a subject might not be again mentioned to him (meaning to the said Plaintiff); and the said H. C. De Crespigny then and there further told the said Defendant, he thought he was quite right not to allow his children to remain with people so infamously connected: And the said H. C. De Crespigny afterwards and before publishing the said libel in the introductory part of this plea mentioned, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. further told the said Defendant that he had seen the Misses Long yesterday at their house in Berkshire, and that he the said H. C. De Crespigny had directly accused Miss Emma Long with her intrigue, upon which she got so confused that she left the room in the greatest embarrassment; that be then stated to Miss Dora Long, that Misa Emma Long had intrigued with his father (meaning the said Plaintiff), and that Mr. Wellesley (meaning the said Defendant) intended to publish the whole story unless they immediately gave up his children. That Miss Long replied, she had nothing to do with her sister's intrigue, and that she must be responsible for her own conduct, but that no one would believe what Mr. Wellesley said; and the eaid H. C. De...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stern v Piper
...refer to them first. 16 The repetition rule is one of considerable antiquity, starting with two cases decided as long ago as 1829, De Crespigny v Wellesley 1829 5 Bing 392 and McPherson v Daniels 1829 10 B and C 263. 17 The decision of Best CJ. in the former is epitomised in the headnote wh......
- David Syme & Company Ltd v Grey
-
Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd
...Court in Moore v. Times-Republican Company. 1904, 124 Iowa Reports, page 717. The justification for the second sentence is given as De Crespigny v. Wellesley, 5. Bingham, page 392, to which we were referred. But, for the reasons indicated at the beginning of my judgment, I do not propose to......
-
Wraight v Johnston
...v. Clement, 16 M & W. 159 , 16 L J , Exch 77. (c) King v. Watts, 8 Car. & P 614 (d) 8 East, 1 , and see 3 P , De Cresfngny v Wellesley, 5 Bing 392 . Ward v. Weeks, 7 Bing 211. (e) The case was moved, and the ruling was upheld; but a rule granted (in the Court of Exchequer) only on the point......
-
LIABILITY FOR ASSISTING TORTS.
...5th ed, 1984) 346. (18) See Barker v Braham (1773) 2 B1 W 866, 868; 96 ER 510, 511; De Crespigny v Wellesley (1829) 5 Bing 392, 404; 130 ER 1112, 1117; DJ Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford University Press, 1999) 180; Davies, 'Accessory Liability for Assi......