Ward v Weeks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1830 |
| Date | 24 November 1830 |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 81
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 796; 9 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 6. Followed, Parkins v. Scoot, 1862, 1 H. & C. 159. Observed upon, Ridding v. Smith, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 94. Followed, Clarke v. Morgan, 1877, 38 L. F. 354. Referred to, Thorleys' Cattle Food Company v. Massam, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 776; Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 3 Q B. 530.
[211] ward v. weeks. Nov. 24, 1830. [S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 796; 9 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 6. Followed, Parkins v. Scott, 1862, 1 H. & C. 159. Observed upon, Riding v. Smith, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 94. Followed; Clarke v. Morgan, 1877, 38 L. T. 354. Referred to, Thorleys' Cattle Food Company v. Massam, 1880,14 Ch. D. 776; Ratdijfe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q. B. 530.'] The Plaintiff alleged special damage from words spoken by the Defendant: Held, that this allegation could not be supported by proof that Defendant had spoken the 82 WARD V. WEEKS 7 BINS. 212. words to B., and that damage ensued in consequence of B.'s repeating them as the words of the Defendant. Slander. The words stated in the declaration to have been spoken by the Defendant of the Plaintiff, were, " He is a rogue and a swindler; I know enough about him to hang him:" and the Plaintiff then alleged, as a special damage, that by means of the committing of the several grievances, one John Bryer, who before and at the time of the committing of those grievances was about to sell goods to the Plaintiff on credit, necessary for the carrying on and commencing of the Plaintiff s business as a general shopkeeper, which he was about to commence, refused and declined so to do. The Defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial of the cause, the evidence which the Plaintiff was prepared to produce was, that the Defendant had spoken the words as laid in the declaration, to one Edward Bryce, and that Bryee had communicated the statement as the statement of the Defendant to John Bryer, who thereupon refused to trust the Plaintiff. Upon this statement of the evidence, the learned Judge, who tried the cause, directed the Plaintiff to be called. Bompas Serjt. in Easter term last obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the Defendant was responsible for the consequences of his own act, and it was a natural consequence that Bryce should repeat what was communicated to him; and that the Plaintiff would be without remedy unless he could sustain this action, for if Bryee named the author of the slander he was not liable. Lord...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation
...per Charles J. (distinguishing Ward v Weeks); Cellactite and British Uralite Ltd. v. H.H. Robertson Co. Ltd . The Times July 23 1957 Ward v Weeks [1830] 7 Bingham, 211 as approved by the majority of the House of Lords in Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC, 956 and/or (d) The reviews wo......
- Weld-Blundell v Stephens
-
Elwardo G. Lynch Appellant/1st Defendant v Ralph Gonsalves Respondent/Claimant [ECSC]
...QB 670. 24 Privy Council No. 86 of 2001. 25 See: McGregor on Damages 14th ed at paragraphs 1389 to 1390. The rule in Ward v Weeks (1830) 7 Bing 211 establishes that a spontaneous and unauthorized communication of a slander repeated by a third party cannot be considered as the necessary cons......
-
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons
...but from its unauthorized repetition’. (footnotes omitted) 70 The authorities included the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ward v Weeks40. That case concerned an oral statement by the defendant of the plaintiff that ‘[h]e is a rogue and a swindler: I know enough about him to hang h......