Vicars against Wilcocks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1806 |
| Date | 06 November 1806 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 244
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 Sm. L. C. (11th, ed.) 521; see Lumley v. Gye, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. 237; Lynch v. Knight, 1861, 9 H. L. C. 590; Ellis v. Loftus iron Company, 1874, L. R. 10 C. P. 14; Bowen v. Hall, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 338; Chamberlain v. Boyd, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 414; Lepla v. Rogers [1893], 1 Q. B. 36; Bostock v. Nicholson [1904], 1 K. B. 742.
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of KING'S BENCH. By EDWARD HYDE EAST, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Yol. YIII. Containing the Cases of Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter, and Trinity Terms, in the 47th Year of GEORGE III. 1806-7. [1] cases argued and determined in the court of king's bench, in michaelmas term, in the forty-seventh year of the reign of george III. vicars against wilcocks. Thursday, Nov. 6th, 1806. Where special damage is necessary to sustain an action for slander, it is not sufficient to prove a mere wrongful act of a third person induced by the slander, such as that he dismissed the plaintiff from his employ before the end of the term for which they had contracted ; but the special damage must be a legal and natural consequence of the slander. [S. C. 2 Sm. L. C. (llth ed.) 521; see Lumley v. Gye, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. 237; Lynch v. Knight, 1861, 9 H. L. C. 590; Mis v. Loftus Iron Company, 1874, L. E. 10 C. P. 14; Bowen v. Hall, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 338; Chamberlain v. Boyd, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 414; Lepla v. Eogers [1893], 1 Q. B. 36; Bostock v. Nicholson [1904], 1 K. B. 742.] In an action on the ease for slander the plaintiff declared, that whereas he was retained and employed by one J. 0. as a journeyman for wages, the defendant knowing the premises, and maliciously intending to injure him, and to cause it to be believed by J. 0. and others that the plaintiff had been guilty of unlawfully cutting the cordage of the defendant, and to prevent the plaintiff from continuing in the service and employ of J. 0., and to cause him to be dismissed therefrom, and to impoverish him; in a discourse with one J. M. concerning the plaintiff and concerning certain flocking cord of the defendant alleged to have been before then cut, said that he, (the defendant) had last night some flocking cord cut into six: yard lengths, but he knew who did it; for it was William [2] Vicars; meaning that the plaintiff had unlawfully cut the said cord. And so it stated other like discourse with other third persons, imputing to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Weld-Blundell v Stephens
-
Craft v Boite
...in consequence of the words, the defendant is not answerable for it, but the plaintiff must bring his action against such third person. 8 East, 1, Viears v. Wilcocks.(o) The persons particularised in the declaration, as having left off dealing with the plaintiff, by reason of the speaking o......
-
Coxhead v Richards
...dismissal, notwithstanding legal, or even actual malice in the defendant; Morris v. Langdale, 2 B. & B. 284 ; Vicars v. IFileocJcs, 8 East, 1; 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 300. If there was no contract, Ward-whose interests might be endangered by delay, and who had incurred no responsibility as......
-
Tyler & Sons v County Council of Cork
...Ald. 487. (3) 1 East, 636. (1) 2 Douglas, 702, note. (2) 2 Douglas, 699. (3) 1 East, 615, at p. 617. (4) Holt, 201. (5) 1 B & Ald. 487. (6) 8 East, 1. (1) 8 East, (2) L. R. 7 C. P. 253. (3) [1892] 1 Q. B. 385. (4) [1893] 1 Q. B. 459; [1894] A. C. 419. (1) [1894] A. C. 419. (1) 2 Douglas, at......