The King against Eve and parlby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1836 |
| Date | 24 November 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1361
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
(S. C. 1 N. & P. 229; 2 H. & W. 450.)
[780] the king against eve and parley. Thursday, November 24th, 1836. D. obtained a rule nisi for a criminal information against the publishers of a libel, on his affidavit that the imputation in the libel was false. The Court discharged the rule, on the sole affidavit of S., who deposed that the imputation was true. Afterwards S. made declarations, and depositions in an ecclesiastical suit (but not, apparently, material to such suit), contradicting his affidavit in all particulars. D. then indicted S. for perjury, and the bill was found, but S. left the country. In the term after S. had made the declarations and depositions, and after he had gone away, D. obtained another rule for a criminal information against the publishers, on affidavit of the above facts, and of his innocence as before. In answer, affidavit was made that S. gave the information, after the publication, voluntarily, and that the deponent then and now believed such information to be true; but no affidavit was made as to information or belief at the time of the publication. The Court, under the peculiar circumstances, made the rule absolute. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 229; 2 H. & W. 450.] In Trinity term last, Wightman, on behalf of Simon Digby, obtained a rule nisi for a criminal information against the defendants, for publishing a libel in a Sunday newspaper, of May 29th, 1836, called the Satirist and the Censor of the Time, in the following words:-"Simon, but more commonly known in the play world, as 'King' Digby, from his skill in ' palming' that card at e"carte, and who long enjoyed an unenviable notoriety among the legs at the club at Brighton, is living in obscurity in 1362 THE KING V. EVE 5 AD. & E. 181. Devonshire.] JHe has been, however, recently in town, and was seen at Epsom during the races, sharp-ly upon the look-out, it was presumed, for flats." In support of the rule, Digby made affidavit that he never was guilty of palming the King at " ecarteY' nor of unfair play at cards or any other game; and that he had not been at Epsom races since 1829. The only affidavit in opposition was that of Thomas Shepard, described, in the title of the affidavit, as of Frederick Street, Hampstead Boad, Middlesex, who deposed that he was intimately acquainted with Digby, and that, on one occasion when Digby dined with the deponent at the deponent's then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Committee Men for the South Holland Drainage
...behalf of the trustees, with the proprietors of, or persons (a)1 See the authorities in Todd v. Jeffery (7 A. & E. 519), and Bex v. Eve (5 A. & E. 780). (b) See Bex v. The Nottingham Old Waterworks Company (6 A. & E. 369, 370), Regina \. Trustees of Swansea Harbour, p. 448, post; judgment o......
-
Field v Mackenzie, on of the Registered Public Officers of the Newcastle Upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company
...(as the case may be)]. '-'' This court will, on the day of , hold sittings, and will (i) 1 Dowl. N. S. 792: and see The King v. Eve, 5 Ad. & E. 780, 1 N. & P. 229; Bodfield v. Padmore, 5 Ad. & E. 785 (a);. Todd v. Jeffery, 7 Ad. & E. 519, 2 N. & P. 443; Tilt v. Dickson, ante, vol. iv. p. 73......
-
Corder v The Universal Gas-Light Company
...ibid.; Dillcmwre v. Capon, 1 Bingh. 398, 8 J. B. Moore, 462; The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Barton, 9 Dowl. P. C. 1021; The King v. Eve, 5 Ad. & E. 780, 1 N. & P. 229; Bodfield v. Padmore, 5 Ad. & E. 785 (a); Todd v. Jeffery, 7 Ad. & E. 519, 2 N. & P. 443; Eossett v. Hartley, 7 Ad. & E. 52......