M'Laughlin v Doey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1893
• Docket Number: (1892. No. 2544.)
• Date: 29 June 1893
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

(1892. No. 2544.)

M'LAUGHLIN

and

DOEY.

Quartz Hill Gold Mining Company v. EyreELR 11 Q. B. Div. 674.

Cotterell v. JonesENR 11 C. B. 713.

Loton v. DevereuxENR 3 B. & Ad. 343.

Annaly v. Trade Auxiliary CompanyUNK 26 L. R. Ir. 11, and 394.

Fleming v. Newton 1 H. L. Cas. 363.

Huffer v. AllenELR L. R. 2 Ex. 15.

M'Nally v. OldhamUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 298.

Stannus v. FinlayUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 264.

Cosgrave v. Trade Auxiliary Company Ibid. 349.

Codrington v. Lloyd 8 A. & E. 449.

Jones v. WilliamsENR 8 M. & W. 349.

Nash v. SwinburneUNK 3 M. & G. 853.

Phillips v. Biron 1 Stra. 509.

Blair v. KinchUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 234.

The Quartz Hill Gold Mining Company v. EyreELR 11 Q. B. Div. 674.

Bromage v. ProsserENR 4 B. & C. 255.

Saxon v. Castle 6 A. & E. 652.

Annaly v. Trade Auxiliary CompanyUNK 26 L. R. Ir. 25.

Kennedy v. HilliardUNK 10 Ir. C. L. R. 195.

Quartz Hill Gold Mining Company v. EyreELR 11 Q. B. Div. 690.

Cutler v. DixonUNK 4 Rep. 14b.

Weston v. DobinettENR Cro. Jac. 432.

Libel — Registration of judgment afterwards set aside as irregular —— Pleading.

518 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div. the place to be stated explicitly, so as to exclude question or doubt. 1893. Mr. Arthur purports, in compliance with the section, to name him ARTHUR self as the person to whom payment is to be made. He was bound v. M'GEADY. also to specify the place of payment. I doubt that the tenant Gibson, J. was misled in any way ; but the section is in this respect mandaÂtory, and must be obeyed. I have confined my remarks to the two points raised, and pronounce no opinion on the notice in any other respect. Solicitor for appellant : J. Mackey. Solicitor for respondent : P. Gallagher. A. E. R. J. Ex. Div. 1PLAUGHLIN v. DOEY. 1893. May 17, 18. (1892. No. 2544.) June 29. Libel-Registration of judgment afterwards set aside as irregular-Act done "in the course of justice"-Pleading. A marked judgment for a liquidated demand against B, which was regisÂtered by A's solicitor in the Registry of Judgments. The judgment was afterwards set aside for irregularity, and B brought an action against A for maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause, marking and registerÂing the judgment, and for libel in publishing of B the words contained in the registration of the judgment. The jury found that A was not guilty of malice in marking the judgment, but the Judge, having instructed them that, on the cause of action in libel, it was not necessary, to sustain the action in that respect, that A should have intended to injure, or should have injured, B, they found that A published the registry of the judgment maliciously, and assessed damages, for which a verdict and judgment was entered against him. A, in his defence, denied malice, but did not plead privilege, or that the publication consisted in causing the Registrar to make the entry. As evidence of publicaÂtion, B entered a certified copy of the registration, but did not prove the delivery of the minute by A's solicitor to the Registrar : Held, that on the pleadings and evidence the action for libel was not susÂtainable; that, even if a new trial were ordered and the minute given in evidence, A, upon an appropriate amendment of his defence, which should, in that case, be allowed, would still be entitled to a direction ; and that the VoL. XXXII.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 519 verdict and judgment for B at the trial should be set aside, and that judgment Ex. Div. should be entered for A. 1893. Kennedy v. Hilliard (10 Ir. C. L. It, 195) followed. IPLATIGILLIN V. DOEY. MOTION by the defendant to change the verdict and judgment entered for the plaintiff at the trial into a verdict and judgment for the defendant, or for a new trial on the grounds of misdirection. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover £1000 damages-(a) for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, marking and registering a judgment ; and (b) for libel. The statement of claim alleged : 1. That the defendant maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause, signed judgment against the plaintiff for £23 and costs, on the 2nd April, 1892, and caused and procured the said judgment to be registered in the office for registering judgments in Ireland. 2. That the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published, or caused and procured to be written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff the words following :- Surname. Defendants' Christian Names, their usual or last known Place of Abode, and Court. Date of Judgment. Amount of Debt or . Damages. Amount of Costs. Names of Plaintiffs, their usual or last known Place of and Title, Date when Memoran- dum left. Title, Trade, or Trade, or Profession. Profession. M'Laughlin, John. Portglenone, Co. Antrim, Innkeeper. En. Div. 1892, Apl. 2. £23 £5 16s. John Doey, Ballymacale- brick, Co. An trim, Farmer. 1892, Apl. 2. 2. Repeated the allegations in paragraph 2, with the innuendo, " meaning thereby that the plaintiff was unable to discharge his legal obligations." 3. Repeated the same allegations, with the innuendo, " meaning thereby that the defendant had, on the 2nd April, 1892, in the Exchequer Division, recovered judgment against the plaintiff for £23 then due, and £5 16s. costs; and that the said judgment was an existing liability against the plaintiff's estate and effects." 4. That by reason of the said matters the plaintiff was put 202 APLAUGHLIN DOEY. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE. Costs and expenses of setting aside said judgment, £10. The plaintiff claimed £1000 damages. The defendant, by his defence, traversed the allegations, in 1st paragraph of the statement of claim, and as to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, pleaded that he did not do the acts therein complained of maliciously, and also that he did same by the leave and licence of the plaintiff ; traversed the writing and publication, the defamaÂtory sense alleged, and the allegation of damage ; and paid £6 into Court in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff replied, joining issue. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson and a jury at the Co. Antrim Spring Assizes. The learned Judge's report of the evidence was a follows : The plaintiff was examined, and proved that he lived in Portglenone, and carried on business as an hotel keeper and a grocer ; and the defendant was a farmer residing near Portglenone. On 29th October, 1891, he (plaintiff) bought from the defendant, through the defendant's man, M'Erlean, a quantity of hay for £23, out of which he (plaintiff) was to receive back £1 luck-money. Some months afterwards he had a conversation with WErlean about payment, and he told M'Erlean to call to his house...