Toogood v Spyring
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1044
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 582; 3 L. J. Ex. 347. See Kine v. Sewell, 1838, 3 M. & W. 297; Henwood v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7. C. P. 606; Hamon v. Falle, 1879, 4 A. C. 247; Harrison v. Fraser, 1881, 29 W. R. 652; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 A. C. 741; Jones v. Thomas, 1885, 53 L. T. 678; 34 W. R. 104; Stuart v. Bell, [1891] 2 Q. B. 341; Hebditch v. Macllwaine, [1894] 2 Q. B. 54.
.. - [181] toogood v. spyiunu. Exch. of Pleas. 1834. - A., the tenant of a farm, required some repairs to be done at the farm house, and B., the agent of the landlord, directed C. to do the work. C. did it, but in a negligent manner, and, during the progress of it, got drunk; and some circumstances occurred which induced A. to believe that C. had broken open his cellar door arid obtained access to his cyder. A., two days afterwards, met C. in the presence of D., and charged him with having broken his cellar door, and with having got drunk and spoilt the work. A. afterwards told D., in the absence of C., that he was confident C. had broken open the door. On the same day A. complained to B. that C. had been negligent in his work, had got drunk, and he thought he had broken open his cellar door : - Held, that the complaint to B. was a privileged communication, if made bona fide, and without any malicious intention to injure 0. : - Held also, that the statement made to C. in the presence of I), was also privileged, if done (rt) Vide Ryallv. Holle, 1 Atk. 105; Lingham v. Biggs, 1 B. & P. 82; Brysm v. Wylit, id. 83, n. ; Horn v. Baker, 9 East, 215; Steward v. LojnJ/e, 4 Moore, 281; 1 Bro. & Bingh. 506, Dallas's judgment; titorer v. Hunter, 5 D. & E. 240; 3 B. & C. 368 ; Clark v. Crowns/taw, 3 B. & Adol. 804 ; Rujfonl v. Bishop, 5 Kuss. 34G ; Hubbanl v. Hitgshaw, .4 Sim. 326; Trappex v. Harter, 2 C. & M. 153 ; Combs v. Beaumont, 5 B. & Adol. 75 ; 2 M. & N. 235 That fixtures cannot generally be treated as goods and chattels, until detached from the freehold, see Nutt v. Hutler, 5 Esp. 176 ; Lee v. Rwduu, ò2 Marsh. 495 ; Niblett v. Smith, 4 T. E. 504. In a fi. fa. against a lessee, who may himself remove them, they may be taken. See Place, v. Fagg, 4 Man. & Kyi. 277 - Per Bayley, J. ; Winn v. 'ingUby, 5 B. & Aid. 625 ; 1 D. & K. 247 ; 1'itt v. Shew, 4 B. & Aid. 206; Emits v. Roberts, 5 Barn. & Gress. 841 ; 8 D. & It. 611. A transfer of property in fixtures, by way of mortgage, requires no transfer of possession to make it good as against other creditors. See Steward v. Lombe, supra ; Bayley, J., in Place v. Fugg, supra. In Trappes v. Harter, there were several peculiar circumstances, 2 C. & M. 153, - 1st, The mortgage did not include the articles in question; 2ndly, There was a custom found to treat them as chattels of the lessee ; 3rrlly, They were all thing* used in fhe lessee's trade, and not (as here) domestic fixtures ; 4thly, The mortgagee, who claimed them against the assignees, had himself, after the mortgage, and previously to the bankruptcy, concurred in representing to the creditors that they were part of the available assets of the bankrupt. 1C.M.&E.182. TOOGOOD V. SPYRING 1045 honestly and bona fide; and that the circumstance of its being made in the presence of a third person does not of itself make it unauthorized, and that it was a question to be left to the jury to determine from the circumstances, including the style and character of the language used, whether A. acted bona fide, or was influenced by malicious motives:-Held also, that the statement to D., in the absence of C., was unauthorized and officious, and therefore not protected, although made in the belief of its truth, if it were in point of fact false. S. C. 4 Tyr. 582; : L. J. Ex. 347. See kwk \. Smell, 1838, 3 M. & \V~. 297; Senwwul v. Hamsun, 1872, L. It. 7 C. P. 606; Hainan v. Fullf., 1879, 4 A. C. 247 ; Harrison v. f'ruser, 1881, 2!) W. R. 052; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1HS2, 7 A. C. 741 ; ./ones v. Thomax, 1885, 03 L. T. (578 ; 31 W. It. 104 ; Slvurt v. Bell, [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 ; Uebditeh v. Maclhvame, [1891] 2 (,). 13. 54.] Slander. The first count of the declaration stated that the plaintiff', at the time of committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned, was a journeyman carpenter, and accustomed to employ himself as a journeyman carpenter, and gain his living by that employment, and had been, and was at the time of committing the grievances tc., retained and employed by, and in the service of, one James Brinsdon, as his journeyman carpenter and workman, at and for certain wages and rewards by the said James Briusdon to him to be paid in that behalf ; and in that capacity and character had always behaved and conducted himself with honesty, sobriety, and great industry and decorum, and never was, nor, until the time of committing the grievances, was suspected to have been or to be, dishonest, drunken, dissolute, vicious, or lazy, to wit, in the county aforesaid; by means of which said several premises he had not only acquired the good opinion of his neighbours and divers other good and worthy subjects, &c., and especially the high esteem of his masters and employers, but had also derived and acquired for himself divers great gains, &c. That the plaintiff, at the time of committing the grievances in the first, second, and last counts mentioned, had been employed by the said James Brinsdon, as his workman and journeyman, in and upon certain work, to wit, on and about certain premises of the defendant, and then and there, upon and throughout that occasion, and during the whole of his the plain tiff's work in and about the same, had behaved and conducted [182] himself with honesty, sobriety, and great industry and decorum, and in a i proper an J workmanlike manner, yet, the defendant, well knowing &c., but contriving I &c., and tb cause it to be suspected and believed that the plaintiff had been and was guilty of the offences and misconduct thereinafter stated to have been charged upon and imputed to him by the defendant, theretofore, to wit, on the 9th of January, 1834, in the county aforesaid, in a certain discourse which the defendant then and there had with the plaintiff of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him with reference and in relation to the aforesaid work, in the presence and hearing of divers worthy subjects &c. ; then and there, in the presence and hearing of the said last-mentioned subjects, falsely and maliciously spoke and published to and of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him with reference and in relation to the aforesaid work, the false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory words...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cush v Dillon
...feature of the statutory defence, but it is the hallmark of the common law defence of a qualified privilege 11. As Parke B explained in Toogood v Spyring 12, the law regards the publication of a false statement which is injurious to the reputation of a person as malicious: ‘unless it is fai......
-
Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others
...society" ( MacIntosh v Dunn [1908] AC 390). The first classic exposition of this doctrine is to be found in the judgment of Parke B in Toogood v Spyring [1834] 1 CM & R 181 at page 193. Baron Parke held that a defamatory publication will be protected by common law privilege in cases where: ......
- Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd
-
Seaga (Edward) v Harper (Leslie)
...is better served by allowing full and frank communication than by requiring the communicator to act responsibly (see Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr.M&R 181 at 193, [1824-43] All ER Rep. 735 at 738 ). The media publisher, by contrast, has above all to act responsibly. " (emphasis mine) 85 The......
-
Summary of Defamation Law
...“common convenience and welfare of society” sometimes requires untrammelled communications: Toogood v. Spyring (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 181, 149 E.R. 1044, at p. 1050, per Parke B. The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes......
-
Lange and Reynolds qualified privilege: Australian and English defamation law and practice.
...States' (1991) 26 Texas International Law Journal 1; Chesterman, above n 15, 173-4. (25) Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181, 193; 149 ER 1044, 1050 (Parke B). (26) Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309, 334 (Lord Atkinson). (27) Chapman v Ellesmere [1932] 2 KB 431. (28) Braddock v Bevins [1948......
-
Summary of the Law of Defamation and its Application to Cyberlibel
...“common convenience and welfare of society” sometimes requires untrammelled communications: Toogood v. Spyring (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 181, 149 E.R. 1044, at p. 1050, per Parke B. he law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes ......
-
Why the common law should be only indirectly affected by constitutional guarantees: a comment on Stone.
...and Gaudron J J). (19) (1997) 189 CLR 520, 566, 570-2. (20) This phrase derives from Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181, 193; 149 ER 1044, 1050. (21) This was correctly perceived by Bongiorno J in Popovic v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [2002] VSC 174 (Unreported, Bongiorno J, 21 M......