 | 1888 - 894 pages
...observation of Lord MANSFIELD is quoted, that "neither party, witnesses, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." On appeal to the House of Lords (LR 7 HL 744 (1875), this judgment was affirmed, and, as quoted in... | |
 | 1890 - 692 pages
...find any. What Mr. Lucas has said is very just : neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office. If the words spoken are opprobrious or irrelevant to the case, the Court will take notice of them as... | |
 | Sir Hugh Fraser - 1893 - 324 pages
...authorities establish beyond all question this : that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office; that no action of libel or slander lies, whether against judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties, for... | |
 | India, James O'Kinealy - 1893 - 896 pages
...ILR, 14 Bom., 97. And the rule in England is that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office— Jex vs. Skinner, 1 Lofft., 55 ; thus where a witness said a will was a rank forgery : Held, that the... | |
 | Frank Towers Cooper - 1894 - 404 pages
...counsel, " beyond all question this ; that neither party, witness, Jur5men " counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or " criminally for words spoken in office; that no action of " libel or slander lies whether against judges, counsel, " witnesses, or parties... | |
 | Robert Campbell - 1894 - 868 pages
...cited in Dawkins v. Rokeby, LR, 8 QB 264), that "neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge, can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office." That must of course be subject to the implied exception of criminal liability for perjury. Apart from... | |
 | Ratanlal Ranchhoddas - 1896 - 372 pages
...vakil, and witnesses come under this exception. "Neither party, witnesses, counsel, jury, or judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." Per Lord Manxfield, in R. Vs. Skinner, Lbf : 55. Again, "no action is maintainable against the party,... | |
 | John Frederic Clerk, William Harry Barber Lindsell, Thomas Hollis Walker - 1896 - 824 pages
...proceedings. 1. With regard to judicial proceedings, " neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or judge, can be put to answer civilly, or criminally, for words spoken in office " (a). " The authorities, are clear, uniform, and conclusive, that no action of slander or libel lies... | |
 | Martin L. Newell - 1898 - 1136 pages
...What Mr. Lucas, the defendant's counsel, has said is very just. Neither party, counsel nor judge, can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." Now in Brook v. Montague the court after full argument bad expressly decided that counsel was protected,... | |
 | Francis Reynolds Yonge Radcliffe, Sir John Charles Miles - 1904 - 648 pages
...Lord Mansfield, in Reg. v. Skinner * , observes : Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office. ' Again, v. Younge 5 is an authority directly in point, that no action 1s7s. lies upon a false affidavit... | |
| |
The authorities establish beyond all question this: that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge, can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office... 
