References: [1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091
Links: Commonlii
Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one discourse, the declaration will be treated as containing only two counts, though each of such two counts contains a separate allegations of the uttering of different words in the particular discourse. Therefore, if in each count there be any words set out which are slanderous, judgment for plaintiff will not be arrested after verdict, though the damages be general and some of the separate allegations recite only words not actionable.
The original publisher of a defamatory statement had no privilege to repeat it when asked for an explanation.
This case cites:
- See Alo – Mary Griffiths -v- Lewis ([1845] EngR 665, Commonlii, (1845) 7 QB 61, (1845) 115 ER 411)
. .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom CA (Times 22-Sep-95, [1997] QB 650, Bailii, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152)
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
