Wright v Woodgate

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1835
Date01 January 1835
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 244

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.

Wright
and
Woodgate

S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 12; 1 Gale, 329. Approved, Laughton v. Bishop of Sodor and Man, 1872, L. R. 4 P. C. 495; 9 Moore, P. C. N. S. 319. Referred to, Jenoure v. Delmege, [1891] A. C. 78; Stuart v. Bell, [1891] 2 Q. B. 345.

[573] WRIGHT v. woodgatk. Exch. of Pleas. 1835.- The meaning, in law, of a . a k.b . ^/-S'/.privilegerl communication, is, a communication made on such an occasion as rebuts the prima facie inference of malice, arising from the publication of matter prejudicial to the character of the plaintiff', and throws upon him the onus of proving malice in fact: but not of proving it by extrinsic evidence only; he has still a right to require that the alleged libel itself shall be submitted to the jury, that they may judge whether there is any evidence of malice on the face of it. - The defendant was the solicitor employed in an equity suit on behalf of the plaintiff, a minor. The plaintiff was desirous of changing his solicitor and informed the defendant of it. The defendant thereupon wrote a letter to the plaintiff's next friend, (who was liable for the costs of the suit), dissuading him from giving any directions in the matter, and alleging, among other observations on the plaintiffs conduct, that a civil engineer, to whom the plaintiff had been apprenticed, had made him a present of his indentures, because he was worse than useless in his office : - Held, that this was a privileged communication. [S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 12; 1 Gale, 329. Approved, Laughton v. Biahop of Sodot and Man, 1872, L. Ei. 4 P. C. 495 ; 9 Moore, P. C. N. S. 319. Beferred to, Jewiure v. Detmege, [1891] A. C. 78; Stwirt v. Bell, [1891] 2 Q. 13. 34f .] This was an action for a libel contained in a letter written by the defendant, one of the firm of Messrs. Currie, Home, & Woodgate, solicitors, in Lincoln's Inn, to a Mr. Byrom, an attorney at Liverpool, under the circumstances hereafter stated. The 2 C. M. & E. 574 WRIGHT 1). WOODGATE 245 defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, as to the parts of the alleged libel which, in the copy of the letter hereafter set forth, are included within brackets, a justification of their truth. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the London Sittings after Trinity Term, the following appeared to be the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff, in the year 1816, being then an infant, became entitled, under the will of hia grandfather, to personal property to the amount of about 5001. In the same year a bill was filed in Chancery, in the name of the plaintiff, by one Whitley, his next friend, to establish the trusts of the will. Whitley died soon afterwards, and an order was made substituting Byrom as the plaintiffs next friend; and, on the death of the plaintiff's father, in 1827, another order was made, appointing a Mr. Jackson his guardian. Other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Palmer v McGowan (No 5)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 2 August 2022
    ...Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Village Investigations Ltd v Gardner [2005] EWHC 3300 (QB) Wright v Woodgate (1935) 2 Cr M & R 537; (1935) 150 ER 244 Justice P Applegarth, “Distorting the Law of Defamation” (2011) 30(1) University of Queensland Law Journal 99 Bryson J P, “Common Law Pleadin......
  • Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 5 October 2012
    ...at 318. 40 (1872) LR 4 PC 495 at 504. 41A Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander, 5th ed (1911) at 292. 42 (1835) 2 Cr M & R 573 at 577 [ 150 ER 244 at 246]. 43 Mitchell, ‘Duties, Interests, and Motives: Privileged Occasions in Defamation’, (1998) 18 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 381 at 3......
  • Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 11 February 2004
    ...(1830) 4 C & P 257 [ 172 ER 695]; Storey v Challands (1837) 8 C & P 234 [ 173 ER 475]. 94 (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181 [149 ER 1044]. 95 Wright v Woodgate (1835) 2 Cr M & R 573 [150 ER 244]; Todd v Hawkins (1837) 8 C & P 88 [ 173 ER 411]; Wilson v Robinson (1845) 7 QB 68 [ 115 ER 413]; Scar......
  • Russell v Norfolk (Duke of)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT