 | Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore - 1905 - 622 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,... | |
 | William Blake Odgers - 1905 - 1020 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,... | |
 | Sir John William Salmond - 1907 - 574 pages
...establish beyond pnv1ege. a ll q ues ti on 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 for libel or slander lies whether against judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties,... | |
 | Henry Coleman Folkard - 1908 - 752 pages
...found) ; and that learned judge observed, that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office : that if the words spoken are opprobrious or irrelevant to the case, the court will take notice of... | |
 | 1908 - 1172 pages
...the subject. "Upon principles of public policy, neither party, witness, counsel, judge, nor jury can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office." Jaggard on Torts, 526. No action will lie against the witness at the suit of a party Injured by his... | |
 | Frederick Pollock, Robert Campbell, Oliver Augustus Saunders, Arthur Beresford Cane, Joseph Gerald Pease, William Bowstead - 1911 - 978 pages
...MANSFIELD, in delivering their judgment, said: "Neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or Judge, can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office." Manisty (Aspinall with him) in support of the declaration: (CocKBUKN, Ch. J.: What do you say to the... | |
 | 1915 - 1084 pages
...v. Skinner (1772) Lofft, 54, it was said that neither party, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office. In Henderson v. Broomhead (1859) 4 Hurlst. & N. 569, 28 LJ Exch. NS 360, 5 Jur. NS 1175, 7 Week. Rep.... | |
 | John Henry Wigmore - 1912 - 1076 pages
...MANSFIELD observed in Rex t>. Skinner, Lofft, 56, that "neither party, witness, counsel, jury nor Judge can d woeman shall be free from bodilie correction or stripes by her hu Some refined distinctions were subsequently engrafted on this doctrine, but they have been swept away,... | |
 | Sir Hugh Fraser - 1921 - 362 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... | |
 | Harendra Chandra Sinha - 1922 - 420 pages
...the following words Persons act" of Lord Mansfield : -Neither party, witness, Counsel, 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 may take notice of them... | |
| |
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... 
