Watts against Fraser and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1837 |
| Date | 09 June 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 455
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 157; W. W. & D. 451; 6 L. J. K. B. 226; 1 Jur. 671; at Niai Prius, 7 Car. & P. 369; 1 Moo. & R. 449.
watts against eraser and another. Friday, June 9th, 1837. In an action of libel the defendant may shew, in mitigation, that he was provoked to issue the libel by publications of the plaintiff reflecting upon him. Quaere, whether the means of proof furnished by stat. 38 G. 3, c. 78, sects. 11 and 17 (and see now stat. 6 i% 7 W. 4, e. 76, s. 8), as to the publication of newspapers, be applicable to prove such publication by a plaintiff. A defendant offering such evidence in mitigation must prove that the libel which he complains of came to his knowledge before he libelled the plaintiff. The mere production from the Stamp Office of a newspaper deposited there by the plaintiff as publisher, according to stat. 38 G. 3, c. 78, s. 17, does not prove this fact. Nor is it even to be inferred from the deposit of such newpaper that similar ones were published to the world in general. If defendant alleges in mitigation that a libellous book was published against him by plaintiff, and, in support of such case, a bookseller produces, from his own possession, a printed book, stating his belief that it is one of a number of copies published at his shop, this is not evidence for the jury that another book with the same contents was actually published. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 157 ; W. W. & D. 451 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 226; 1 Jur. 671: at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 369 ; 1 Moo. & R. 449.] Case. The first count was for a libel in a work called Fraser's Magazine, ridiculing (a) The rule for a quo warranto was afterwards made absolute, without any further intimation of opinion by the Court. See now stat. 7 W. 4, & 1 Viet, c. 78,s. 11. 456 WATTS V. FHASER 7 AD. & E. 224. the plaintiff as editor of a publication called the Literary Souvenir, and attacking the Souvenir; the second count was for a libel in the same magazine, reflecting on the plaintiff personally. Plea, not guilty. On the trial before Lord Denraan C.J., at the sittings in Middlesex after Michaelmas term 1835, it appeared that the alleged libels were published in 1834 and 1835. The defendants proposed to shew, in mitigation, that the defendant [224] Fraser, before publishing the matter now complained of, had on several occasions been libelled by the plaintiff in the Literary Souvenir, and in newspapers called the United Service Gazette and the Alfred; which libels, it was suggested had provoked those now in question. The reception of such evidence was objected to, but the Lord Chief Justice held it admissible (a)1. To prove the plaintiff's connection with the United Service Gazette, the defendants put in a certified copy of an affidavit filed at the Stamp Office in 1833 pursuant to stat. 38 G. 3, c. 78, ss. 1, 2, 5 and 9, stating Watts to be a proprietor of that paper. They also produced, from the British Museum, newspapers which they proved to have been deposited at the Stamp Office, under sect. 17, and transmitted from thence to the Museum, corresponding with the description in the affidavit, and of subsequent dates. Evidence according to the statute was also given as to the Alfred; and a witness was called who had printed the copies sent to the Stamp-Office and now produced, and had signed them with his name, as servant to the plaintiff. It was proved that the plaintiff had read to a witness, as hia own, an article in one of the papers which it was now proposed to put in. The defendants' counsel then proposed to read, for the purpose of mitigation, parts of the several papers thus given in evidence; but the reading was objected to, and the Lord Chief Justice held the evidence inadmissible (b). A Literary Souvenir for 1832 was also produced for the same purpose; and a witness, in the employ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake v King
...for trial if he cannot find bail. 4 B. Moore, 195, Butt v. Conant. [1 B. & B. 548, S. C.] (p) [The authority of this case was denied in 7 A. & E. 223, Watts v. Fraser. 2 Nev. & P. 157, S. C.; and the Court said that it does not follow, as of course, from a work being printed, that the party......
-
Merrick against Wakley, Esquire, M. P
...Murray v. Souter, cited in Cook v. Ward, 6 Bing. 414; Rex v. Donnison, 4 B. & Ad. 698; Rex v. Franceys, 2 A. & E. 49; Watts v. Fraser, 7 A. & E. 223. (a)2 It appeared that the pauper, to whose case the libel here in question related, was not in the workhouse at the time in question, but no ......
-
59 NLR 558
...The case of Baldwin v. Elphinston [1 (1775)96 E. R. 610. ] appears not to have received unqualified support in Watts v. Fraser [2 (1835) 112 E. R. 455.] Referring to that case Patterson, J., made an observation in which I respectfully concur, namely, that the court there seems to have enter......