Tidman v Ainslie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1854 |
| Date | 07 June 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 357
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[63] TiDMAN v ainslie. June 7, 1854-In an action for libel, it is no justification that the libellous matter was previously published by a thnd peison, and that the defendant, at the time of his publication, disclosed the name of that person, and believed all the statements contained in the libel to be true label. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was one of the secretaues of a society called "The London Missionary Society," at a ceitain salary, yet the defendant falsely and maliciously punted and published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the plaintiff as such secretary, a fake and malicious libel, in the form of a pamphlet, in titled "The defence of the innocent, the Rev E Daviesand Mrs. Davies, fiom the charges biought against them by the officers of the London Missionary Society (meaning amongst others the plaintiff as such secretary), and an Exposition of the Ecclesiastical Proceedings of the Congregational Hoard of Ministers in relation to Mr Davies, dedicated to the Congtegational Ghuiches and Pastors of the British Empire,"in a certain part of \vhrch said pamphlet, purporting to be a letter from the said Mr and Mrs Davies to the directors of the London Missionary Society, was contained the several false, malicious, and libellous matters following of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the plaintiff as such secretary, &c The declaration then set out the letter Plea, that the words in the declaration mentioned are an extract from an original letter which had been addressed by the said Mr and Mrs Davies to the directors of the London Missionary Society before the publishing of the said last-mentioned words, aud that a copy of such last-mentioned letter had then been given by the said Mr and Mrs Davies to the defendant, and that the defendant then believed all the statements made in the said letter, and particularly the said words of the sard letter so published as aforesaid, to be true. And the defendant further saith, that the London Missionary Society is a society [64] supported by contributions obtained from the congregational churches and pastors of the Biitish empire. Demurrer, and joinder therein. Lush, in support of the demurrer, argued that the subject rnattei of the plea afforded no justification for the libel The Couit called on Stammers to support the plea The plea is within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Stockport Waterworks Company v Potter
...748. Considered and distinguished, Nuttall v. Bracewell, 1866, 4 H. & C. 722; L. R. 2 Ex. 10. Distinguished, Holker v Porritt, 1875, L R. 10 Ex. 63, Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 135. Approved, Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Company, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 170. Adopted, McCartney v......
-
Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error
...2 Fost. & Fin, 123. Avery v. Boden 6 Ell. & B. 973. Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211. Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323. Tidman v. AinslieENR 10 Exch. 63. Parkins v. Scott 1 H. & Colts. 153. Knight v. Lynch 9 H. of L. Cas. 577. Duke of Brunswick v. Harman 14 Q. B. 185. R. v. AllmanENR 5 Burr. 2086.......
-
Ex parte W Games Re Williams v Lloyd
...748. Considered and distinguished, Nuttall v. Bracewell, 1866, 4 H. & C. 722 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 10. Distinguished, Holler v Parrett, 1875, L R. 10 Ex. 63, Kenszt v. Great Eastern Railway, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 135. Approved, ()mend v. Todmordem Mill Company, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 170. Adopted, McCartney v......
-
— v Sanford
...& Ros. 181. Somerville v. HawkinsENR 10 C. B. 583. Taylor v. Hawkins 16 Q. B. 308. Lord Cromwell's caseUNK 4 Rep. 12. Tidman v. AinslieENR 10 Exch. 63. Harris v. ThompsonENR 13 C. B. 333. Tuson v. Evans 12 Ad. & Ell. 223. Lewis v. WalterENR 4 B. & Ald. 605. Coxhead v. RichardsENR 2 C. B. 56......