Tarpley, Clerk, v Blabey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1836 |
| Date | 13 January 1836 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 171
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Scott, 642; 1 Hodges., 414; 5 L. J. C. P. 83: at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 395.
[437] tarpley, Clerk, v. blabey. Jan. 13, 1836. [S. C. 2 Scott, 642; 1 Hodges, 414; 5 L. J. C. P. 83 : at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P, 395.] 1. A libellous paper, in the handwriting of the Defendant, found in the house of the editor of a newspaper in which the libel complained of appeared, is admissible in evidence against the Defendant, notwithstanding several parts of it have been erased, and are omitted in the newspaper, provided the passages erased do not qualify the libel.-2. In order to the admission in evidence of libels by the Plaintiff in mitigation of damages, it must be shewn with precision that such libels relate to the libels by the Defendant. Libel. The first count of the declaration charged the Defendant with having published in a newspaper, called the Northampton Free Press, on the 24th of November 1832, a letter which, after insinuating that Plaintiff was illegitimate, raised doubts as to his moral and religious conduct, comparing him to Judas, holding him out as a hypocrite, and concluding, by asking the question what he was, and answering, "a justice of the peace, turnpike road commissioner, a licensed game killer, a hark-away fox-hunter, and, last, a parson." There was a second and third count for other libellous expressions concerning the Plaintiff painted on boards hanging out at the Defendant's window, and chalked by the Defendant on gates. At the trial before Tindal C. J. in order to connect the Defendant with the publication in the newspaper, it was proved that about the time of its appearance he had called on the editor, and a paper in the Defendant's handwriting was produced by a person who had gone to inspect the editor's house with a view of taking it on lease. This paper contained all the libellous passages contained in the newspaper, and many others of a more outrageous description, through which some person had drawn a pen, and which were omitted in the newspaper. A letter was also produced which had been sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, in or about the month of September 1832, which contained many of the passages published in the newspaper. Objections made to the admissibility of these two [438] documents being overruled, they were received in evidence, but only such passages of the latter were read as corresponded with the libel in the newspaper. 172 TAKPLEY V. BLABEY 2 BING. (N. C.) 439. The Defendant then gave in evidence a libel written by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, and appearing in the same newspaper of November 24, 1832. It was also proved that, previously to the publication of the Defendant's libel, the Plaintiff had been seen writing on a gate the appellatives of "Oxford Bob," "Codfish," and others, as applicable to the Defendant. The Defendant then proposed to shew that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake v King
...M. & R. 250, Warren v. Warren. 4 Tyrw. 850, S. C. 7 C. & P. 680, Shipley v. Todhunter. 6 Bing. 409, Cook v. Ward. 4 Moo. & P. 99, S. C. 2 Bing. N. C. 437, Tarpley v. Blabey. 2 Scott, 642, S. C. 4 B. & C. 35, Rex v. AmphlU.] (n) Or before his house. 11 East, 226, Jeff tries v. Duncombe. (0) ......
-
Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error
...Exch. 331. Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323. R. v. Burdett 4 B. & Add. 95. Johnson v. Hudson 7 Ad. & Ell. 233, note. Tarpley v. BlakeyENR 2 Bing., N. C. 437. R. v. Harvey and ChapmanENR 2 B. & C. 25. The Trial of the Seven BishopsST1 12 State Trials, 183. R. v. Lovett Supra. R. v. Carlisle 1 Ch......
-
Murphy v Halpin
...were addressed, on the credit of the Plaintiff, from believing the same, and in order to show that credit ought (1) 3 B. & C. 113. (2) 2 Bing. N. C. 437. 134 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. not to be attached to the allegations of the Plaintiff in that behalf, caused to be printed and published i......
-
Pierce v Ellis
...473. Saunders v. MillsENR 6 Bing. 213. Andrews v. ChapmanENR 3 Car. & K. 289. Charlton v. WaltonENR 6 C. & P. 385. Tarpley v. BlabeyENR 2 Bing. N. C. 437. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 55 ter ; and if so, he had a right to adjudicate on the facts of the T. T. 1856. Exchequer. case. By the Civil-Bill ......