Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

If a man should lie in wait" and fright the boys from going to school, that schoolmaster might have an action for the loss of his scholars."

Per Holt, C.J., in Keeble v. Hickeringill, 11 East, 576, n.

If a man induces a servant to break his contract with his master and quit his employment, the master has an action per quod servitium amisit.

Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216; 22 L. J. Q. B. 463; 17 Jur. 827.

Bowen v. Hall and others, 6 Q. B. D. 333; 50 L. J. Q. B. 305; 29

W. R. 367; 44 L. T. 75; 45 J. P. 373.

And generally as to the liability of those who, without justification, persuade others not to employ, or not to serve, the plaintiff, see

Skinner v. Kitch, (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 393; 36 L. J. M. O. 322; 15
W. R. 830; 16 L. T. 413.

Jenkinson v. Neild, (1892) 8 Times L. R. 540.

Temperton v. Russell and others, (1893) 1 Q. B. 715; 62 L. J. Q. B.
412; 41 W. R. 565; 69 L. T. 78; 57 J. P. 676; 4 R. 376.

Trollope and Sons v. London Building Trades Federation, (1895) 72
L. T. 342; 11 Times L. R. 228, 280.

Same v. Same, (1896) 12 Times L. R. 373.

Allen v. Flood and another, (1898) A. C. 1; 67 L. J. Q. B. 119; 46 W. R. 258; 77 L. T. 717; 62 J. P. 595.

Huttley v. Simmons and others, (1898) 1 Q. B. 181; 67 L. J. Q. B. 213. J. Lyons and Sons v. Wilkins, (1899) 1 Ch. 255; 68 L. J. Ch. 146; 47 W. R. 291; 79 L. T. 709; 63 J. P. 339.

Walters v. Green, (1899) 2 Ch. 696; 68 I. J. Ch. 730; 48 W. R. 23; 81 L. T. 151; 63 J. P. 742.

Boots and others v. Grundy and others, (1900) 48 W. R. 638; 82 L. T. 769; 16 Times L. R. 457.

Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) A. C. 495; 70 L. J. P. C. 76; 50 W. R. 139; 85 L. T. 289; 65 J. P. 708.

Read v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons and others, (1902) 2 K. B. 88, 732; 71 L. J. K. B. 994; 51 W. R. 115; 87 L. T. 493; 66 J. P. 822.

Glamorgan Coal Co. v. South Wales Miners' Federation, (1903) 2 K. B. 545; 72 L. J. K. B. 893; 89 L. T. 393.

Giblan v. National Amalgamated Labourers' Union, &c., (1903) 2 K. B. 600; 72 L. J. K. B. 907; 89 L. T. 386.

CHAPTER II.

LIBEL.

FALSE defamatory words, if written and published, constitute a libel. In cases of libel, any words will be deemed defamatory which appreciably injure the reputation of another, which make men think worse of him. All written words which expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, which tend to injure him in his profession or trade, or cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours, are libellous.

66

Everything, printed or written, which reflects on the character of another, and is published without lawful justification or excuse, is a libel, whatever the intention may have been." (Per Parke, B., in O'Brien v. Clement, 15 M. & W. 435.) The words need not necessarily impute disgraceful conduct to the plaintiff; it is sufficient if they render him contemptible or ridiculous. (Cropp v. Tilney, 3 Salk. 226; Villers v. Monsley, 2 Wils. 403; Watson v. Trask, 6 Ohio, 531.)

Any printed or written words are defamatory which impute to the plaintiff that he has been guilty of any crime, fraud, dishonesty, immorality, vice, or dishonourable conduct, or has been accused or suspected of any such misconduct; or which suggest that the plaintiff is suffering from any infectious disorder; or which have a tendency to injure him in his office, profession, calling, or trade. And so, too, are all words which hold the plaintiff up to contempt, hatred, scorn, or ridicule, and which, by thus engendering an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking men, tend to deprive him of friendly intercourse and society.

It appears to be impossible to define a libel with any greater precision or lucidity. I proceed at once therefore to give instances.

Illustrations.

It is libellous to write and publish of a man that he is—

[blocks in formation]

64

Cooke v. Hughes, R. & M. 112;

Campbell v. Spottiswoode, 3 B. & S. 769; 32 L. J. Q. B. 185; 9 Jur.
N. S. 1069; 11 W. R. 569; 8 L. T. 201;

a great defaulter,"

Warman v. Hine, 1 Jur. 820; 1 J. P. 346;

Bruton v. Downes, 1 F. & F. 668;

"a hypocrite,"

Thorley v. Lord Kerry, 4 Taunt. 355; 3 Camp. 214, n. ;

"a frozen snake,"

Hoare v. Silverlock, (No. 1, 1848) 12 Q. B. 624; 17 L. J. Q. B. 306; 12 Jur. 695;

"a rogue and a rascal,"

Per Gould, J., in Villers v. Monsley, 2 Wils. 403;

"a dishonest man,"

Per cur. in Austin v. Culpepper, Skin. 124; 2 Show. 314;

"a mere man of straw,"

[ocr errors]

Eaton v. Johns, 1 Dowl. N. S. 602;

an itchy old toad,"

Villers v. Monsley, 2 Wils. 403 ;

a desperate adventurer," association with whom "would inevitably cover

gentlemen "with ridicule and disrepute,"

Wakley v. Healey, 7 C. B. 591; 18 L. J. C. P. 241;

that "he grossly insulted two ladies,”

Clement v. Chivis, 9 B. & C. 172; 4 M. & R. 127;

that he is unfit to be trusted with money,"

Cheese v. Scales, 10 M. & W. 488; 12 L. J. Ex. 13; 6 Jur. 958;

that he is insolvent and cannot pay his debts,"

Metropolitan Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins, 4 H. & N. 87; 28 L. J. Ex. 201; 5 Jur. N. S. 226; 7 W. R. 265; 32 L. T. (Old S.) 281 ; that he was once in difficulties," though it is stated that such difficulties are now at an end,

Cox v. Lee, L. R. 4 Ex. 284; 38 L. J. Ex. 219; 21 L. T. 178; that the plaintiff "will not sue in a particular county, because he is known there,"

Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 347 ;

[ocr errors]

that he is "the most artful scoundrel that ever existed," "is in every person's debt," that his ruin cannot be long delayed," that "he is not deserving of the slightest commiseration,"

Rutherford v. Evans, 6 Bing. 451; 8 L. J. (Old S.) C. P. 86; that he is "at the head of a gang of swindlers," that he is "a common informer, and has been guilty of deceiving and defrauding divers persons with whom he had dealings,"

O.L.S.

I'Anson v. Stuart, 1 T. R. 748; 2 Smith's L. C. 6th ed. 57;

[blocks in formation]

that the plaintiff sought admission to a club and was black-balled, and bolted the next morning without paying his debts.

O'Brien v. Clement, 16 M. & W. 159; 16 L. J. Ex. 76 ; 4 D. & L. 343. So it is libellous to write and publish of a landlord that he put in a distress in order to help his insolvent tenant to defraud his creditors.

Haire v. Wilson, 9 B. & C. 643; 4 M. & R. 605.

It is libellous for a defendant to write a letter charging his sister with having unnecessarily made him a party to a Chancery suit, and adding, "It is a pleasure to her to put me to all the expense she can."

Fray v. Fray, 17 C. B. N. S. 603; 34 L. J. C. P. 45; 10 Jur. N. S. 1153. It is libellous to write of a lady applying for relief from a charitable society, that her claims are unworthy, and that she spends all the money given her by the benevolent in printing circulars filled with abuse of the society's secretary. Hoare v. Silverlock, (No. 1, 1848) 12 Q. B. 624; 17 L. J. Q. B. 306; 12 Jur. 695.

It is libellous to charge the plaintiff with having published a libel,

Brookes v. Tichborne, 5 Exch. 929; 20 L. J. Ex. 69; 14 Jur. 1122; Or to write and publish that he has been tried for murder, though it is not stated that he was convicted or was guilty,

Monson v. Tussauds, Limited, (1894) 1 Q. B. at p. 686;

Or to state in writing that the plaintiff is insane, or that her mind is affected. Morgan v. Lingen, 8 L. T. 800.

It is libellous for the manager of a private lunatic asylum to write of a lady, "I have been to her house this morning and seen her. I think it my duty to inform you it is imperative that immediate steps to secure her should be taken."

Weldon v. Winslow, Times, March 14th-19th, 1884. Ironical praise may be a libel: e.g., calling an attorney

[ocr errors]

an honest lawyer." Boydell v. Jones, 4 M. & W. 446; 7 Dowl. 210; 1 H. & H. 408.

R. v. Brown, 11 Mod. 86; Holt, 425.

Sir Baptist Hicks' Case, Hob. 215; Poph. 139.

A hypothetical instance may be a libel; e.g., "Supposing I were to tell certain stories about you to the effect that you, &c."

Ritchie & Co. v. Sexton, (H. L.) 64 L. T. 210; 55 J. P. 389.

An obituary notice of a living person may be a libel.

McBride v. Ellis, 9 Richardson (41 South Carolina) 313.

It is libellous to impute to a Presbyterian "gross intolerance" in not allowing his hearse to be used at the funeral of his Roman Catholic servant.

Teacy v. McKenna, Ir. R. 4 C. L. 374.

It is libellous to charge the plaintiff with ingratitude, even though the facts on which the charge is based be stated, and they do not bear it out. Cox v. Lee, L. R. 4 Ex. 284; 38 L. J. Ex. 219; 21 L. T. 178.

It is libellous to state in a newspaper of a young nobleman that he drove over a lady and killed her and yet attended a public ball that very evening (although this only amounts to a charge of unfeeling conduct).

Churchill v. Hunt, 1 Chit. 480; 2 B. & Ald. 685.

As to a charge of want of delicacy, see

A. B. v. Blackwood & Sons, (1903) 5 F. 25 (Ct. of Session).

It is libellous to write and publish of a lady of high rank that she has her

photograph taken incessantly, morning, noon, and night, and receives a commission on the sale of such photographs.

R. v. Rosenberg, Times, Oct. 27th, 28th, 1879.

It is a libel to impute or imply that a grand jury have found a true bill against the plaintiff for any crime.

Harvey v. French, 1 Cr. & M. 11.

It is libellous to call a manufacturer a "truckmaster," for this implies that he has been guilty of practices in contravention of the Truck Act.

Homer v. Taunton, 5 H. & N. 661; 29 L. J. Ex. 318; 8 W. R. 499; 2 L. T. 512.

It is libellous to write and publish that a child is illegitimate.

Shelby v. Sun Printing Association, 38 Hun, (45 N. Y. Supr. Ct.) 474. It is libellous to write and publish of an unmarried woman that she has a daughter,

Chattellv. Daily Mail Publishing Co., Limited, (1901) 18 Times L. R. 165; Or of a married woman that she gave birth to twins one month after her marriage.

Morrison v. Ritchie & Co., (1902) 4 F. 645 (Ct. of Session).

It is libellous to write and publish of a man that a certain notorious prostitute is "under his patronage or protection,"

More v. Bennett, (1872) 48 N. Y. R. (3 Sickels) 472;

Or of a married man that his conduct towards his wife is so cruel that she was compelled to summon him before the magistrates.

Hakewell v. Ingram, (1854) 2 C. L. Rep. p. 1397.

It is libellous "to paint a man playing at cudgels with his wife."
Per Lord Holt, C.J., in Anon., 11 Mod. 99.

See Du Bost v. Beresford, 2 Camp. 511.

It is a libel on a married lady to assert that her husband is petitioning for a divorce from her.

R. v. Leng, 34 J. P. 309.

It is a libel for a husband to publish in writing that A. has committed adultery with his wife.

Per Kelly, C.B., in Brown v. Brine, 1 Ex. D. 5; 45 L. J. Ex. 129; 24 W. R. 177; 33 L. T. 703.

It is libellous to charge a man in writing with having cheated at dice or on the turf, although all gambling and horse-racing transactions are illegal or at least void.

Greville v. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 731; 13 L. J. Q. B. 172; 8 Jur. 189;
D. & M. 553.

[ocr errors]

Yrisarri v. Clement, 3 Bing. 432; 11 Moore, 308; 2 C. & P. 223. It is libellous to call a man a black-leg" or a black-sheep." But there should be an averment that these words mean a person guilty of habitually cheating and defrauding others.

M'Gregor v. Gregory, 11 M. & W. 287; 12 L. J. Ex. 204; 2 Dowl.

N. S. 769.

O'Brien v. Clement, 16 M. & W. 166; 16 L. J. Ex. 77.

Digby v. Thompson and another, 4 B. & Ad. 821; 1 N. & M. 485.

Barnett v. Allen, 3 H. & N. 376; 27 L. J. Ex. 412; 4 Jur. N. S. 488;

1 F. & F. 125.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »