Barthe v. Huard

Barthe v. Huard

The trial judge erred in upholding the notary's refusal to produce the contre-lettre because its production was necessary to determine limitations on the deed and materially affected the defendant's justification plea; the judge's charged language treating accusations as if made against jurors or their relatives was misleading and prejudicial; although objections to the charge were made after verdict, the appellate court may in its discretion grant a new trial to prevent miscarriage of justice; accordingly the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 406
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Ulric Barthe; Respondent (plaintiff): Alphonse Huard
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 1909
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Privilege, Production of Documents, Notary Privilege, Jury Charge, Misdirection, New Trial, Perjury, Qualification for Municipal Office
Source Language
English
Evidence Civil Procedure Defamation Municipal Law Privilege Production of Documents Notary Privilege Jury Charge +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ulric Barthe

Appellant (defendant)

Alphonse Huard

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a notary may refuse production of a contre-lettre deposited in his custody when it is material to the defendant's justification plea
  2. 2 Whether oral evidence as to the contents of a privileged document can substitute for production of the document
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's jury charge (treating accusation as if made against jurors or their relatives) was misleading and prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in upholding the notary's refusal to produce the contre-lettre because its production was necessary to determine limitations on the deed and materially affected the defendant's justification plea; the judge's charged language treating accusations as if made against jurors or their relatives was misleading and prejudicial; although objections to the charge were made after verdict, the appellate court may in its discretion grant a new trial to prevent miscarriage of justice; accordingly the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered