Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury result to the party from the speaking of them – and, semble, that the defendant may, under the general issue, go into evidence to shew that he spoke the words bona fide and without rnalice
Citations:
[1824] EngR 822, (1824) 1 Car and P 475, (1824) 171 ER 1280
Links:
Cited by:
See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 1825
Bayley J distinguished ‘malice in law’, inferred from the defendant’s intentional interference with the plaintiff’s rights, from ‘malice in fact’ and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it . .
See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 2-Jun-1825
Thls case having been again argued, by J L Adolphus, for the plaintiffs, and Campbell, for the defendants, the Court now gave Judgment on the motion for a new trial.
Abbot CJ (after stating the nature of the case) — On the general question, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Torts – Other
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.327813
