Williams v Stott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 570
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Tyr. 688; 2 L. J. Ex. 303; 3 ib. 110. Referred to, Barrett v. Long, 1851, 3 H. L. C. 413; Lemon v. Simmons, 1888, 57 L. J. Q. B. 263; 36 W. R. 351.
[675] WILLIAMS v. stott. Exch. of Pleas. 1833.-Slander, for accusing plaintiff' of felonious embezzlement.-It appeared that the plaintiff had been chosen and sworn in at a court leet held by a corporation, as chamberlain of certain common-able lands. The duties of the chamberlain (who received no remuneration) were to collect monies from the commoners and other persons using the commonable lands ; to employ the monies so received in keeping the lands in order ; to account at the end of the year to two aldermen of the corporation, and to pay over any balance in his hands to his successors in office :-Held, that the plaintiff was not "a servant, or person employed in the capacity of a servant," within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 47, as to embezzlement.-If a good innuendo in a declaration, ascribing a particular meaning to alleged slanderous words, be not supported in evidence, the plaintiff cannot reject it at the trial, and resort to another meaning. -Semble, that a verbal imputation of fraudulent embezzlement in an office of the above description would not be actionable. [& C. 3 Tyr. 688 ; 2 L. J. Ex. 303 ; 3 ib. 110. Referred to, Barrett v. Lung, 1851, 3 H. L. 0. 413; Lemon v. Simmons, 1888, 57 L. J. Q. B. 263; 36 VV. ft. 351.J Slander. The declaration began by alleging, that, before the time of the committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was employed as the servant of certain persons, to wit, the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Warwick; in a certain situation, office, and employment, to wit, the situation, office, and employment of one of the chamberlains of the commons and commonable lands, within the parish of St. Mary, in the borough of Warwick ; by virtue and in exercise of which said employment, it was the plaintiff's duty to receive and take into his possession divers large sums of money, for and on account of the said mayor, aldermen, and^burgesses. And that the defendant, contriving to injure the plaintiff, and to cause it to be suspected that he had been and was guilty of the offence of fraudulent and felonious embezzlement, and to subject him to the penalties provided by jihe laws against persons guilty thereof, in &c., at &c., in a discourse which the defendant had of and concerning the plaintiff, as such servant of the said mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, and of and concerning the plaintiff's conduct in his said employment, in the presence, &c., spoke aud published to and of and concerning the 1C. &M.676. WILLIAMS V. STOTT 571 plaintiff, and of and concerning the conduct of the plaintiff as such servant as aforesaid, the false and defamatory words following, viz. : " You are a rogue and a villain ; and what have you (meaning the said plaintiff) done with the commoners' money 1 (thereby meaning money received by the plaintiff by virtue of his said employment). You (meaning the plaintiff) embezzled!" (thereby meaning that the plaintiff had fraudulently and feloniously, and [676] against the form of the statute in that behalf made and provided, embezzled money received by him by virtue of his said employment). There were other words of general abuse set out in the count, which it is unnecessary to mention. The second count was similar to the first, referring to the prefatory matter stated in that count, and containing a similar innuendo. The third count set out the same words, but alleged that they were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff as servant to certain persons, to wit, the commoners of the parish of St. Mary, in the borough of Warwick, in a certain employment, to wit, &c., describing the employment as in the first count, but stating that the monies were received for and on account of the commoners, with a like innuendo as to felonious embezzlement. The fourth count alleged that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning his conduct in a certain employment, to wit, the employment, situation, and office of one of the chamberlains of the commons and commotiable lands of the parish of St. Mary, without averring that he was servant to any parties, but containing a similar innuendo. The last count did not refer to any office, but merely set out the words with an innuendo that the defendant meant that the plaintiff' had been guilty of fraudulent and felonious embezzlement. Plea-Not guilty. At the trial before Denman, G. J., at the last Spring Assizes for the county of Warwick, it appeared in evidence that there were commonable lands, of considerable extent, attached to the borough of Warwick, and that the plaintiff filled the situation of one of the chamberlains of the commons of the parish of St. Mary. The chamberlains, four in number, were annually nominated by the leet jury, at a court leet held by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Warwick. The steward of the leet, by whom the court was held, was the town clerk of the corporation, who swore in the chamberlains when chosen. The duties of the office consisted in superintending certain lands, upon [677] which various persons inhabiting the parish of St. Mary had rights of common ; the chamberlains collected certain sums from the commoners in respect of the number of commonable cattle turned upon the lands by each individual; and they also collected monies from persons making use of the comtnonable lauds at races and reviews, which were usually held therein. The monies thus collected they applied in fencing, soughing, draining, and otherwise keeping the lands in order; and, at the expiration of their year of office, they passed their accounts before two of the aldermen of the corporation, who were also justices in the borough ; and, if any balance remained in their hands, they paid it over to their successors in office. Upon this evidence, it waa objected by the defendant's counsel that the plaintiff was not a servant, or person employed in the capacity of a servant, within the meaning of the statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 47, the present legislative provision as to embezzlement by clerks or servants; and that, as there was an innuendo to each of the counts, averring that the defendant me^,nt to impute to the plaintiff the offence of embezzlement against the form of the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v Boite
...in proof of which will be fatal to the plaintiff's case. 3 Camp. 461, Smith v. Carey. 4 B. & C. 655, Sellers v. Till 7 D. & E. 121, S. C. 1 Cr. & M. 675, Williams v. SMt. 3 Tyrw. 688, S. C. 1 A. & E. 558, Day v. Robinson. 2 Nev. & M. 670, S. C. 2 Bing. N. C. 402, Jackson v. Adams. 2 Scott, ......
-
Maguire v Knox
...MAGUIRE and KNOX. Watkin v. HallELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 396. Barrett v. LongENR 3 H. L. C. 395. Williams v. StottENR 1 Cr. & M. 675. Harvey v. FrenchENR 1 Cr. & M. 11. Hunter v. SharpeENR 4 F. & F. 983. Robinson v. JermynENR 1 Price, 11. Libel Inuendo 408 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Exchequer. MAGU......
-
M'Manus v M'Enroe
...Pleas. M'MANUS and M'ENROE. Tawney's caseUNK 16 Vin. Abr. 416. Smith v. CareyENR 3 Camp. 461. Williams v. StootENR 1 C. & M. 675. Black v. Holmes 1 Fox & Smith, 28. Janson v. StuartENR 1 T. R. 748. Lord Cormwell's caseUNK 4 Rep. 12, a. Astly v. Young 2 Bur. 807. Edwards v. BellENR 1 Bing. 4......