 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Marshall v Renwick [1835] CA 13_1127 (14 July 1835) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS1127.html Cite as: [1835] CA 13_1127 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Page: 1127↓
Subject_Reparation—Defamation.—
1. Circumstances in which damages to the amount of £100 were awarded to a medical practitioner on account of circulating a gross calumny, imputing that he had debauched a female patient, after rendering her insensible, by administering a drug for that purpose under the pretence of its being medicine. 2. Observed that it is no defence for a party repeating a calumny to allege that he did not originate it, and that such a circumstance can only operate in mitigation of damages.
Action of damages by Dr John Marshall, formerly physician at Port-Glasgow, now at Manchester, against George Renwick, hosier in Port-Glasgow, and his wife. The ground of action was defamation, in imputing to Dr Marshall that he had seduced and repeatedly debauched a female patient named Mrs King, while her husband was at sea, and that in order to effect his purpose at first he had given her a stupifying drug in place of medicine. The following issues went to trial:—
1. “Whether, in or near the shop or house of the defenders, in Port-Glasgow, on or about the 2d day of August, 1833, in presence and hearing of Mrs Mary Campbell or Rose, relict of the deceased John Rose, the defender, Mrs Renwick, did falsely and calumniously say that the pursuer had been too intimate with Mrs King, wife of Alexander King, mate of a merchant-vessel, that he had been too often with her, and done too much to her; meaning thereby that the pursuer had had criminal intercourse with the said Mrs King; or did falsely and calumniously use or utter words to that effect—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
2. “Whether, on or about the 3d day of August, 1833, at the place last aforesaid, and in presence and hearing of the said Mrs Rose, the defender, George Renwick, did falsely and calumniously say that the pursuer had been in use to go to the house of the said Mrs King at untime-ous hours, when she had no need of a doctor; meaning and intending thereby that the pursuer had had criminal intercourse with the said Mrs King; or did falsely and calumniously use or utter words to that effect-to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
11. “Whether, in or near the house of John Alexander, clerk in the custom-house, Greenock, on or about the 19th day of August, 1833, in presence and hearing of Margaret Neilson and Margaret Alexander, or either of them, the defender, Mrs Renwick, did falsely and calumniously say that the pursuer had given the said Mrs King a draught, which took away all power of resistance from her; meaning thereby that the pursuer had obtained carnal knowledge of her person; or did falsely and calumniously use or utter words to that effect—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
“Damages laid at £5000.”
There were thirteen issues in all, relative to different times and places where the same slander had been repeated.
The defenders were the nearest relations of the husband of Mrs King. It appeared that Mrs King had been delivered of a child during her husband's absence, that she had an indifferent recovery, and had been attended by Dr Marshall, who had occasion to perform a painful surgical operation. Her mind became temporarily affected by some species of mental incoherence or mania, during which she gave utterance to many wild fancies, such as her apprehension of being hanged, or burnt, or devoured by wild-beasts, &c. During these she had repeatedly charged Dr Marshall with having committed adultery with her as above mentioned, which charges the defenders had repeated in conversation. Several persons had believed the charge; but others, including the parish clergyman, on hearing her make the charge, had treated it as incredible, partly from the state of her mind, partly from the character of Dr Marshall, who was a married man with a family, and in respectable practice, and partly from the improbability of such a matter being brought to light by the woman's voluntary disclosure. The defenders, however, alleged that Mrs King had disclosed it voluntarily because the concealment of it oppressed her conscience, and occasioned those melancholy fancies resembling incoherence. They adduced various witnesses at the trial, each of whom had received the story directly from Mrs King, who told it with entire consistency, and one of them deponed to circumstances inferring that, at the date of the communication, the defenders were still ignorant of the existence of such a charge. It appeared that the defenders had endeavoured in conversation to impress the belief of the charge upon some of their auditors who treated it as incredible.
In making up the record the defenders made no admission of then-belief that the charge was utterly false, but they did so at the trial.
In charging the jury the
It is now admitted that the charge was false, and it is fully proved that the
His Lordship then adverted to various details of the evidence, and concluded by observing, that, while it was clearly a case in which nominal damages were out of the question, the jury would be careful, on the other hand, not to give vindictive damages, but merely such an amount as would at once vindicate the character of the pursuer and emphatically mark the sense entertained by the jury of the aggravated nature of the calumnies which had been circulated against him.
The Jury found for the pursuer. Damages, £100.
Solicitors: Tait & Young, W.S.— J. Patten, W.S.—Agents.