Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1865
• Date: 24 April 1865
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

POPE

and

COATES.

COATES, plaintiff in Error;

POPE, defendant in Error.

Sandwell v. SandwellENR Holt, 296.

Rex v. BearENR 2 Salk. 417; S. C. 1 Lord Ray. 414.

Reg v. LovettENR 9 Car. & P. 462.

Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211.

Parker v. Scott 31 Law Jour., Exch. 331.

Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323.

R. v. Burdett 4 B. & Add. 95.

Johnson v. Hudson 7 Ad. & Ell. 233, note.

Tarpley v. BlakeyENR 2 Bing., N. C. 437.

R. v. Harvey and ChapmanENR 2 B. & C. 25.

The Trial of the Seven BishopsST1 12 State Trials, 183.

R. v. Lovett Supra.

R. v. Carlisle 1 Chitty, 451.

The Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer 14 Ad. & Ell. 185.

Frescoe v. MayENR 2 Fost. & Fin, 123.

Avery v. Boden 6 Ell. & B. 973.

Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211.

Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323.

Tidman v. AinslieENR 10 Exch. 63.

Parkins v. Scott 1 H. & Colts. 153.

Knight v. Lynch 9 H. of L. Cas. 577.

Duke of Brunswick v. Harman 14 Q. B. 185.

R. v. AllmanENR 5 Burr. 2086.

Johnson v. Hudson 7 Ad. & Ell. 233, note.

Rex v. SouthENR 9 Car. & P. 462.

R. v. BennettENR 4 B. & Ald. 86, 135.

156 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1863. Exchequer. POPE v. COATES.* COATES, plaintiff in Error ; POPE, defendant in Error. THIS was an action for libel and slander. The first count in the plaint charged that, at a meeting of the board of Poor-law Guardians of the Clonmel Union, upon the 8th of May 1862, and at subsequent meetings, the defendant falsely and maliciously published, and caused to be published of the plaintiff, as a collector of poor-rate, and in relation to that office, the malicious and defamatory libel following :-" I beg to submit the following statement, having reÂÂ" ference to the conduct of John Pope, a poor-rate collector for " the Electoral Divisions of Graignagower and Ballymacarbry, in " the Clonmel Union, those divisions being the estate of the Earl "of Stradbrooke. His lordship gave me, his agent, directions to "have the game strictly preserved ; and this Pope having for some "years past been 'in the habit of having a gun and greyhound with "him when, as he alleges, he was engaged collecting rates, he took " the opportunity of killing game. It so happened that, on the "30th of October last, Lord Stradbrooke's caretaker, James Belford, " found him on the lands of tenants of Lord Stradbrooke, with the " gun and greyhound in search of game, when summonses were " issued against him at the suit of those tenants ; and after various " postponements the cases were heard at the Petty Sessions of BalÂÂ" lymacarbry, on the 10th of March instant, when Pope was fined " 5. Here, his subsequent conduct appears to me most illegal, "been in the habit of furnishing me with an account of the rates "payable by Lord Stradbrooke ; and on the last rate being struck, " namely, on the 5th of December 1861, Pope furnished his account, " omitting an item, namely nine shillings, for a holding lately given "up to Lord Stradbrooke, and in which James Belford was put "in possession as caretaker. Immediately after Pope was convicted " by the Magistrates, as before stated, he rushed out of the CourtÂÂ" house with two men, and, proceeded to the house so occupied " by Belford, and calling him a perjurer,' seized a gun for the " rate of nine shillings ; and although the sum was paid upon the "spot by the bailiff of Lord Stradbrooke, he, Pope, charged two " shillings for the seizure, and two shillings each for his two "men, which was also paid, and for which I hold his receipt. I " am well assured this conduct will never be countenanced, as had "Pope theretofore demanded the rate, or included it in the account " he furnished, he would have got paid, as well he knew.-I have " the honour to be, &c. &c., A.BR4HAM COATES." Innuendo-that the plaintiff had made an illegal seizure, before demand, and had exercised his office oppressively. Special damage, the dismissal of the plaintiff from his office. There was also a count for slander, which charged that, when the Guardians of the Clonmel Union were proceeding to elect a poor-rate collector for the above electoral divisions (to which office the plaintiff was re-elected by the Guardians), the defendant said to some of the Guardians who supported the plaintiff as a canÂÂdidate, " why do you support him ?"-(meaning the plaintiff.)-"At the workhouse you ought not to support a poacher." To the count for libel the defendant pleaded a traverse of the publication, no libel, privileged communication; and that judgment for forty shillings, and sixpence costs, had been recovered by plaintiff against the defendant, in an action for libel upon the same letter. To the count for slander he pleaded a traverse of the speaking of the words; a traverse of the words having been spoken conÂÂcerning the plaintiff's election to the office of poor-rate collector, 158 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1863. and privileged communication. The action was tried before the Exchequer. LORD CHIEF BARON and a special jury, at the Sittings after Easter POPE Term 1863. The plaintiff stated that the charge of two shillings v. COATES. for the seizure which he made in Belford's house, before payment of the poor-rate was tendered, and two shillings for each of the bailiffs, was so authorised by the schedule to the 9 & 10 Vic., c. 111. His Lordship was of the same opinion. The results which flowed from the writing of the letter in question by the defendant appeared from...