Ward v Weeks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1830 |
| Date | 24 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation
...and assessment of, the same programme over which the defendants have no control and/or (c) The learned judge was bound by the decision of 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 review......
- 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......
-
McManus and Others v Beckham
...the court ruling that the intervention of a third party was a novus actus interveniens, others apparently deciding that it was not. Thus Ward v Weeks (1830) 7 Bingh. 211 was a case in which the words alleged to be defamatory were addressed to one Bryce who "without any authority from the de......
-
Publication and Republication
...Basse v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. (1983), 44 O.R. (2d) 164, per Montgomery J. at 165, citing Ward v. Weeks (1830), 7 Bing. 211 at 215, 131 E.R. 81, approved in WddBlundell v. Stephens, [1920] A.C. 956 at 999, Eyre v. New Zealand Press Ass'n Ltd., [1968] N.Z.L.R. 736 at 744 (S.C.), Macy ......