Hort v Reade

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1873
• Date: 20 November 1873
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. Bench.

Before WHITESIDE, C. J., O'BRIEN and FITZGERALD, JJ.

HORT

and

READE.

The Earl of Lucan v. Smith 13 Ir. C. L. r. App. 43.

Clinton v. HendersonENR 1 H. & N. 481.

Watkin v. HallELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 396.

Gourley v. PlimsollELR L. R. 8 C. P. 362.

Page v. Bacon 4 Ir. Jur. 125.

Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. & F. 608.

Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117.

Laughton v. The Bishop of Sodor and Man L. R. 4 P. C. App. 495.

Clinton v. Henderson 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. 43.

Lucan v. SmithENR 1 H. & N. 481.

Kane v. MulvanyUNKIR I. R. 2 C. L. 402.

Gourley v. PlimsollELR L. R. 8 C. P. 362.

J'Anson v. StuartUNK 2 Sm. L. C. 57.

Clinton v. Henderson 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. 43.

Pleading Libel "Privilege" "Fair comment" "Justification" "Innuendo"

be by the common law or by the statute law. It cannot be made Q. Bench. out by the common law, because the common law does not allow 1873. the sheriff to take such fees. No Act of Parliament has been THE alTEEN cited granting fees under the circumstances before us to the R.v.v.wm. sheriff, and. it does not appear that any such fees were by ancient MANNING. usage allowed. A number of prosecutions were instituted by the Attorney-General, from whom notice was given that special jurors would be struck under the old system. The juries were struck, and it appears the Crown solicitor paid the fees in all cases where the juries were actually struck, but the same fees were demanded by the sheriff where no jury was struck ; in fact, where nothing was done. We entertain no doubt whatever that this motion ought to be refused. Rule refused HORT v. READE (1). Pleading-Libel-" Privilege"-" Fair comment"-" Iustiftcation"-" Innu- . Q. Bench _ endo"-" Com. Law Proc. Act, 1852" (Eng.), s. 61-" Corn. Law Proc. 1873. Act, 1853" (Irish), s. 65. Nov. 20. 1. A plea of " fair comment" should be framed according to the concise precedent in Clinton v. _Henderson (13 I. C. L. R. App. 43). 2. In Ireland-where the count, in libel or slander, specifies the defamatory sense by innuendos-a plea of " justification" must justify in the sense attriÂÂbuted by the innuendos. ACTION of libel. Motion to set aside the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th defences as embarrassing. The plaint contained three counts ; the 1st, for printing and publishing of the Plaintiff in his office of Resident Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, a libel contained in a letter addressed to the editor of the Kilkenny Moderator ; the 2nd, for printing and publishing a libel of the Plaintiff ; and the 3rd, for printing and publishing of the Plaintiff, in his office of Resident Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, another libel in a letter addressed to the editor of the Kilkenny Moderator; and -each count contained (1) Before WHITESIDE, C. J., O'BRIEN and FITZGER&LD, JJ . 552 THE IRISH REPORTS. innuendos attributing various defamatory meanings to the words of 1873. the alleged libels. Hoar The Defendant pleaded-in addition to the ordinary traverses READE. V. and defences of " no libel"-to the 1st count, a defence (the 7th) of " privilege," setting out numerous details at great length, which the Court held to be irrelevant ; to the 2nd count, a similar defence (the 8th) ; to the 3rd count, a defence (the 9th) of "fair comment," setting out many matters not necessary to such a defence, and deviating from the concise form in Clinton v. Henderson (1) ; and further to the 3rd count, the Defendant pleaded a defence (the 10th) of " justification," as follows :- " As to so much of the third count as relates to the printing and publishing, and to writing, composing, and publishing by the Defendant of the said alleged...