Tupling v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1861 |
| Date | 25 February 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 309
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 30 L J. Ex. 222, 7 Jur (N. S) 314, 9 W R 482, 4 L T. 20. Commented on, Bartlett v. Lewis, 1862, 12 C B (N S) 262. Applied, Edmunds v Greenwood, 1868, L. R 4 C. P. 74 Referred to, Villboisnet v Tobin, 1869, L. R 4 C P. 189, Hill v. Campbell, 1875, L R 10 C P 238
[749] tltling v. ward.() Feb -25, 1861 -In an action for libel, the Court will not permit the plaintiff to exhibit interrogatories to the defendant, the answers to which, if in the affirmative, would tend to shew that he composed or published the libel, and would therefore criminate him [S C. 30 L J. Ex. 2-22 , 7 Jur (N. S ) 314 , 9 \V R 4*2 , 4 L T. 20. Commented on, Baitlett v. Leiw, 1862, 12 C B (N S) 262. Applied, Edmunds v Greenwood, 1868, L. It 4 C. P. 74 Referred to, VilUboisnd v Tobin, 1869, L. K 4 C P. 189 , Hill v. Campbell, 1875, L K 10 C P 238 ] T. Jones, in last Hilary Term, had obtained a rule calling on the defendant to shew cause why the plamtitf should not be at liberty to exhibit interrogatories to the defendant, pursuant to the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 The declaration stated that the plaintiff was an accountant, and that the defendant, intending to insult the plaintiff and bring him into contempt, and to cause people to believe that he was an hypocritcal, fraudulent, tricky and contemptible person composed and published of and concerning the plaintiff, as such accountant, in the form of an article called "Cheating the Gallows," contained in a book called "The Diary of an Ex-Detective," the false, &c, matter following -"Cheating the gallows" (setting out the libel, which ended with the words), "At any rate Tupling had succeeded in cheating the gallows," &c The defendant was the publisher of the book in question, and the interrogatories proposed to be administered were as to whether the defendant had composed the article complained of, whether he knew who composed it; whether " Charles Martel," the name on the title page, was real or fictitious, whether the defendant had been, or expeeted to be, indemnified ; with other questions of that kind Joseph Phillips shewed cause.(i) The questions proposed in this case are such (a) Decided in last Hilary Vacation. (b) In Hilary Term, Jan. 29. Before Martin, B, and Wilde, B. 310 TUPLING V. WARD 6H&N 7SO that, if answered iu the affirmative, the answers would expose the defendant to a criminal prosecution It is now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v Lane
...from being administered at all, or should east on the defendant the burden of objecting to them on oath On this point TiTisng v. Ward (6 H. & N. 749), in this Court, where interrogatories were disallowed in an action of libel, seems to some extent at variance with Bartlett v. Lewis (12 C. B......
-
The Bishop of Cork and Othrs v Porter
...v. Staveland 1 Ves. Se. 55. Pye v. ButterfieldUNK 5 B. & B. 829. Donoughmore v. ForrestUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 443. Tupling v. WardENR 6 H. & N. 749. Edmunds v. Greenwod L. R. 4 C. p. 70. Ejectment — Forfeiture — Interrogatories. 94 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Com. Pleas. 1877. FRIEDEL V. CASTLE R......
-
Bartlett v Lewis
...coart in Chester v. Woi'tley, 17 C. B. 410. But it is said that those cases have been overruled by the recent case of Tupliiuj v. Ward, 6 Hurlst. & N. 749. I apprehend, however, that that is not so. If that case proceeded upon the notion that the courts of equity will not allow discovery in......
-
Lefroy v Burnside
...394. Ramsden v. Brearley W. N., 1875, 199. Fisher v. Owen 8 Ch. Div. 645. Allhusen v. LabouchereELR 3 Q. B. Div. 654. Tupling v. WardENR 6 H. & N. 749. Orr v. Diaper 4 Ch. Div. 92. Practice — Interrogatories — Libel — Proprietorship of newspaper — Criminal prosecution pending — 6 & 7 Wm. 4 ......