References:  EngR 822, (1824) 1 Car & P 475, (1824) 171 ER 1280
Ratio: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
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Bromage And Another -v- Prosser (Commonlii,  EngR 42, (1825) 4 B & C 247, (1825) 107 ER 1051)
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 (Commonlii,  EngR 609, (1825) 1 Car & P 673, (1825) 171 ER 1362 (B))
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, . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 30-Jun-16