Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Defence of justification in defamation cases query

  • 23-02-2010 11:06AM
    #1
    JMGal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭


    Crawford v Todd (1941) 75 I.L.T.R. 233

    It was claimed that the Defendant kept a "Hell's gambling den" and that he sold intoxicating liquor without a licence. The defendant could not prove the truth of the second allegation and the defence of justification failed.

    Im really sorry if this seems to be a stupid question but I fear that my brain is starting to pack it in :( as I cant get a handel on the above. Does it mean that the Defendant failed to prove that he did not serve intoxicating liquor ?


Comments

  • #2
    Kanye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭Kanye


    That's not quite what happened. Firstly, the Plaintiff said that the Defendant operated "a Hell's gambling den" and sold intoxicating liquor without a licence. The Defendant pleaded justification i.e. that the Plaintiff did both those things.

    The Defendant was unable to prove that intoxicating liquor was sold without a licence, so his defence failed insofar as that allegation was justified. The jury's verdict was set aside and a new trial was directed as to the extent of damages only.

    It's actually reasonably technical. I'm guessing you're studying and if you are, I wouldn't get bogged down by this point. Not at all.

    Edit: I see that you posted in some FE1 thread before. Seriously, this point is not important for you. If you don't understand what happened, just skip that case.


Advertisement