Wright v Clements
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1820 |
| Date | 25 April 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 746
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Bradlaugh v. R., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 631; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 743.
746 WRIGHT V. CLEMENTS 3 B. & AID. 501. wright against clements. Tuesday, April 25th, 1820. Declaration stated that the defendant published a libel, containing false and scandalous matters concerning the plaintiff, in substance as follows; and then set out the libel with' innuendoes: Held, that this was bad in arrest of judgment. [Referred to, Bradlaugh v. R., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 631; Capital and Counties Bank v. Senty, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 743.] Declaration stated, that defendant contriving, &c, falsely, &c. did publish, and did cause and procure to be published, a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, in the form of a statement, purporting to be written by one William Cobbett, of and concerning the plaintiff, containing, amongst other things, certain false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libellous matters, of and concerning the said plaintiff, in substance, as follows ; that is to say: it then proceeded to set out the libel with innuendoes. The plaintiff having obtained a verdict for 5001. damages, at the Middlesex sittings after last Michaelmas term, before Abbott C.J., a rule was obtained in Hilary term for arresting the judgment, on the ground that the declaration was defective in stating [504] the libel to be set out in substance only, and not according to the tenor. And now Scarlett, Denman, and Chitty, shewed cause. This rule was obtained on the authority of the case of Newton v. Stwbbs (2 Show. 435. 3 Mod. 71). There the declaration stated the words spoken to be to the effect following, and that was held to be bad in arrest of judgment. That case, however, does not apply to the present; for taking the whole declaration together, it appears that the very words of the libel are set out, for there are innuendoes which would be unnecessary, if the declaration purported to set out only the substance or effect. It is sufficient, at all events, after verdict, if the declaration imports to set out the substantial matter of the libel. In The Queen v. Drake (3 Salk. 225), Holt C.J. says, "A libel may be described either by the sense or by the words, and therefore an information charging that the defendant made a writing containing such words, is good, and in such a ease a nice exact ness is not required because it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v Boite
...of taking the opinion of the Court upon the words of the libel by demurrer. 6 Taunt. 169, Wood v. Brown. 1 Marsh, 522, S. C. [See also 3 B. & A. 503, Wright v. Clements, ante, p. 121, note (a).] So in actions for verbal slander, the words must be stated. 3 M. & S. 110, Cook v. Cox. [And thi......
-
Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
...660, Reg. v. Dmke.(a) (a) From which it appears that the word "tenor" binds the party to set out the very words of the libel. See also 3 B. & A. 503, Wright v. Clements, where it was held that, setting out a libel "in substance as follows," was bad in arrest of judgment; and it was stated b......
- British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another
-
Olsen v. St. Martin, (1981) 32 A.R. 51 (QBM)
...Rule 4, is the same as King's Bench Rule 154, and the same reasoning will apply to it. See also Wright v. Clements, 3 B. & A. 503 (106 E.R. 746); Odgers on Libel and Slander, (5th Ed.), 623-24; Halsbury, vol. 18, 643; Annual Practice, (1923) 332; Breen v. MacDonald, 22 U.C.C.P. 298; Rob......