The Duke of Brunswick v Harmer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1850 |
| Date | 21 June 1850 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 441
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
See Duke of Brunswich v Harmer, 14 Q. B. 185.
SCAR. &K. 10. BRUNSWICK V. HARMER 441 [10] June 21st, 1850. the duke of brunswick v. harmer. (If J H. and M Y. be registered at the stamp office as " the sole proprietors " of a newspaper, " that is to say, the said J. H. as legal owner as mortgagee, and M Y. as owner of the equity of redemption," this is sufficient to fix J. H. as a proprietor of the newspaper in an action for a libel contained in it. In an alleged libel, the writer suggested the propriety of the plaintiff " withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity," the word " natural" being printed m italics :-Held, that the plaintiff could not ask a witness what he understood by the word " natural " thus printed, but that the ]ury might look at the paper and form their opinion as to the meaning ) (See Duke, of Brunt iwcL v. Harmer, 14 Q B. 185 ] Libel -The declaration stated that, before and at the time of the committing of the serveral grievances hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was the proprietor of a certain newspaper called the " Weekly Dispatch," and that on the 14th day of March, 1848, a certain action at law was commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench, against the now defendant, by the plaintiff, for the publication of certain libels published by the defendant. [These libels, which were a series of articles in the " Weekly Dispatch " newspaper, were all set out verbatim, and imputed oppressive conduct and misgovernment to the plaintiff while he was the reigning sovereign of Brunswick ; and that he had ordered letters to be taken from the post-office ] The declaration then went on to state, that that action was tried on the 20th day of June, 1849, when the defendant was found guilty of the grievances in that action complained of, and that the jury assessed the damages of the plaintiff on occasion thereof at 500Z, of all which the defendant had notice And that the defendant was proprietor of a certain newspaper called the " Sun," and that he falsely, mahciously, £c , did print and publish, and cause and procure to be printed and published in the said newspaper called the " Sun," of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said grievances, and every of them so published in the said newspaper called the " Weekly Dispatch," as hereinbefore mentioned, and of and conceining the said action at law so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)
...States of the USA) is not applicable in this jurisdiction, the judge relied principally on two authorities, one old and one new: Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 154 and Berezovsky v Forbes [2000] 1 WLR 1004. The appellants submit that he was wrong to do so. This has been called the ......
-
Monument Mining Ltd. v. Balendran Chong & Bodi et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1769
...or employee of a person defamed may be published where that person is a natural person: Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849), 14 Q.B. 185, 175 E.R. 441; Pullman v. Walter Hill and Co. Ltd. [1891] 1 Q.B. 524 (C.A.). Whether the same rule applies where the defamed party is a company is a questi......
-
Bolton v O'Brien
...Long, 3 H. L. Cas. 395, 413. Daines v. HartleyENR 3 Exch. 200. Simmons v. MitchellELR 6 App. Cas. 156, 163. Duke of Brunswick v.HarmerENR 3 C. & K. 10. Libel Publication in separate issues of the same newspaper Pleading Innuendo Evidence Misdirection Excessive damages. Vor,. XVI.j Q. B., O.......
- Brunswick (Duke of) v Harmer