Weaver v Lloyd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1824 |
| Date | 05 March 1824 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1202
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 336; 2 B. & C. 678, with annotations.
START 1202 WEAVER V. LLOYD I CAR. & F 299. Oxford Assizes, before Mr. Baron Garrow March 5th, 1824. weaver v. lloyd. (If a hbel is justified as true, and in the plea each specific statement is averred to be true ; if the defendant does not prove each statement to be true, the plea is not proved, though he prove facts of the same kind In an action for a hbel, if a letter of the defendant is read, which refers to an account of the transaction the libel relates to, which has appeared in a newspaper, that newspaper may be given in evidence.) [Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 336 ; 2 B. & C. 678, with annotations.] This was an action for a libel published in the Oxford Herald, imputing to the plaintiff that he had cruelly [296] beaten his horse, and knocked out one ot its eyes. The defendant pleaded, 1st, the general issue ; 2nd, a justification of the truth of all the things stated in the libel; and, 3rd, another justification, which merely alleged that the statements of the libel were " true in substance " (a). The manuscript of the libel was proved to be of the defendant's handwriting, and read. A letter from the defendant to the editor of the Oxford Herald was rea,d ; it referred to another account of the beating of the horse, which had appeared in that paper. The plaintiff's counsel wished to read the account so referred to from the Oxford Herald.-This was objected to. Garrow, B. held, that the account so referred to by the defendant in his letter was admissible in evidence. It was read from the Oxford Herald. Evidence was given on the part of the plaintiff, to shew the falsehood of the statements of the libel, and on the part of the defendant, to shew that the libel was a fair account of what occurred It was admitted on all hands that the statement, that the horse's eye was knocked out, was untrue ; but that m other respects the hbel was a fair account of what had occurred. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages one farthing, on the general issue ; for the plaintiff on the first justification ; and for the defendant on the second justification [297] Jervis, Peake...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolton v O'Brien
...and Counties Bank v. HentyELR 7 App. Cas. 741. Cooke v. Hughes 1 Ry. & Moo. 112. Mullet v. HultonENR 4 Espinasse, 248. Weaver v. LloydENR 1 C. & P. 295. Rex v. LambertENR 2 Camp. 398. Rex v. Horne Cowper, 672. Solomon v. Lawson 8 Q. B. 823. Griffiths v. Lewis Ibid. 841. Williams v. Stott 1 ......