The Rev. Thomas Little v Lord Clements

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1851
• Date: 25 January 1851
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

The Rev. THOMAS LITTLE

and

LORD CLEMENTS.

Cook v. ClarkENR 10 Bing. 19.

Bird v. Gunston 2 Chit. R. 459.

Beechy v. SidesENR 9 B. & C. 806.

Ballinger v. FerrisENR 1 M. & W. 632.

Rudd v. ScottUNK 2 Sc. N. R. 631.

Hughes v. BucklandENR 15 M. & W. 346.

Wedge v. Berkeley 6 A. & E. 663.

Horn v. Thornborough 3 Ex. R. 846.

Theobald v. CrichmoreENR 1 B. & Al. 227.

Lake v. KingENR 1 Saund. 131, a.

Fairman v. IvesENR 5 B. & Al. 647.

Weatherston v. HawkinsENR 1 T. R. 110.

Dunman v. BiggsENR 1 Camp. 269.

Child v. AffleakENR 9 B. & C. 403.

Weller v. TokeENR 9 East, 364.

Maloney v. BartleyENR 3 Camp. 210.

Rex v. LeeENR 5 Esp. 123.

Duncan v. ThwaitesENR 3 B. & C. 556.

Rex v. Beare 1 L. Ray. 416.

Blagg v. Sturt 10 Q. B. 899.

Haseldine v. Grove 12 Law Jour. N. S. 15, Mag. Cas.

Prestidge v. WoodmanENR 1 B. & C. 12.

Cox v. ReidUNK 13 Jur. 563.

Briggs v. EvelynENR 2 H. Bl. 114.

Waterhouse v. KeenENR 4 B. & C. 209.

Culverson v. MeltonUNK 2 M. & R. 200.

Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 193.

Padmore v. Lawrence 11 A. & E. 380.

Wright v. WoodgateENR 2 C. M. & R. 573.

Delany v. JonesENR 4 Esp. 191.

Woodward v. LanderENR 6 C. & P. 548.

Warr v. JollyENR 6 C. & P. 497.

194 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1851. Queen's Bench The Rev. THOMAS LITTLE v. Jan. 21, 24, LORD CLEMENT S. 25. Where a TRESPASS on the case for libel. The declaration contained five charge was preferred be- counts. The first count stated that the plaintiff was a clerk in fore a Justice of the Peace holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and against a cler gyman, for an officiated as such in the parish of Cloone, in the county of Leitrim, assault with intent to com- in the diocese of Kilmore, and that the defendant was a Justice of mit a flony, and thee Jus- the Peace for said county. That a charge had been preferred before ticea of the Pea reduced the defendant as such Justice by one Anne Thompson against the Peace the statement writing plaintiff while he was such clerk in orders, of indecent and improper into in the form of behaviour towards her, and assault, with intent, &c. ; and that the a declaration, as prescribed said Anne Thompson made a declaration before the defendant in by the statute 5 & 6 W. 4, support of the charge, but that no indictment or other criminal c. 62, and signed it as proceeding had been instituted against the plaintiff in respect such Justice, returned thereof, and the same had since remained undecided. and aenclosed in n envelope It then averred that the defendant, maliciously intending to injure to the com- theplaintiff as such clerk, and whilst the subject of such charge was plainant for delivery to the undecided, falsely and maliciously, and not in the execution and Dean of the diocese ac- discharge of his duty as Justice of the Peace, or of any official duty, cording to his , request, in and without any reasonable or probable cause, did publish of and order that this declaration concerning the plaintiff as such clerk, &e., and of and concerning might be laid before the said charge, a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory Bishop for in vestigation : Held, that on such a state of facts a question ought to have been left to the jury to say whether the Justice of the Peace acted bona fide, and under the belief that he was acting in the execution of his duty, and in a matter within his jurisdiction as such Justice ? Held also, that it was for the jury to say whether, under the circumstances, the communication was a privileged communication, and whether the Justice acted bona fide and without malice in its publication ? Senzble-If the jury found such facts in the affirmative, the Justice was within the protection of the statute 12 Vic. c. 16, and entitled to notice of action. Semble-The 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 62, does not authorise a Justice of the Peace to take a declaration charging a party with a criminal offence. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 195 libel, purporting to be the declaration of the said Anne Thompson, in H. T. 1851. Queen's Bench the words following-[setting out the declaration in hcee verba, with LITTLE inuendos],-and concluded with an averment of special damage. v. The other counts did not materially differ. Damages were laid CLEMENTS. at 1000, and the defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, at the Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, to prove publication of the libel the plaintiff produced the Rev. Arthur Hyde, the rural Dean of the diocese. He deposed that he had received the declaration in question in July or August 1850 from Anne Thompson, who came to his house with her husband, and handed it to him. That this document was in the defendant's handwriting, and that shortly after he had so received it he apprised the plaintiff of its contents through his brother curate,. the Rev. Andrew Hogg. On his cross-examination he stated that it was in his. character as rural Dean that he had received the declaration, that it was delivered to him in an envelope ; but he could not say whether it was sealed or not ; and if addressed at all it was addressed in the defendant's handwriting ; that he gave it to the Rev. Andrew Hogg in order that he might show it to the plaintiff's Rector. That in consequence of a written application made to him by the plaintiff for a copy of the declaration, he had given him the copy then. proÂÂduced ; that the matters set forth in the declaration were intended to be made the subject of a complaint to the Bishop, and that he as the rural Dean knew that no investigation did take place before the Bishop, the reason being that the plaintiff had in the meantime resigned and ceased to be a clergyman of the diocese ; that he bad never given a copy of the declaration to any one except for the purpose above mentioned ; that he had seen the husband of Anne Thompson before the making of the declaration ; that he did not know that Thompson and his wife were going before a Justice, .but that in consequence of what had been told him by the husband, he suggested that they should go before the nearest Magistrate, but he did not name any Magistrate ; that Lord Clements was the nearest magistrate; that about two days after that interview he received,the declaration from Thompson. and wife ; that previous to the taking, of 196 COMMON LAW REPORTS. the declaration he had a verbal communication with Lord Clements as to the declaration, and he suggested to Lord Clements to take the declaration himself, for these reasons :-first, as the character of a clergyman was involved ; secondly, as he did not wish to trespass on the Bishop's time without having something stronger to go by than a mere verbal statement. That plaintiff had stated to witness he wanted the copy of...