BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Stewart v. Buchanan. [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_34 (14 March 1816) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1816/1_Murray_34.html Cite as: [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_34 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 34↓
(1816) 1 Murray 34
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 5
Present, Lords Chief Commissioner and Pitmilly.
If there is otherwise a foundation for an action of damages for defamation, the pursuer may rest on private letters, though written two years before.
This was an action of damages raised by the Chamberlain to the Duke of Argyle, in Kintyre, and Provost of the burgh of Campbeltown, against the Collector of the Customs at Inverary, for slander.
Page: 35↓
Defence.—Provocation, and a denial of any thing false, malicious, or injurious to character.
The defender, on the 15th November 1813, wrote the pursuer, complaining of one of the Duke's tenants not being continued in possession of his farm, and of the reason assigned for this being that he had not brought his cautioner to Inverary. The letter then stated that the farm was promised to one “whom public report affirms you are partial to, as he and his relatives have given you cash to a late purchase you have made;” and that, “if the tenant was in arrear, it was owing to advances made for his son, your (the pursuer's) tenant.”
On the 17th, the pursuer wrote that this letter should have no answer, “were it not to contradict the falsehoods it advances;” and as to the advance of cash, stated, “whoever told you that I got money,” &c. “told you a damned lie.” In reply, the defender, on the same day, repeated his assertion as to the cause of the arrear of rent due by the tenant, and then proceeded, “and you maintain a damned lie that it is untrue,” &c.
In January 1815, at a sale of sea-ware, where the pursuer was judge of the roup, a warm dispute arose between the parties, whether the
Page: 36↓
The summons is dated 17th April 1815.
“1. Whether the pursuer did receive two letters, written and directed to him by the defender, and dated 15th and 17th November 1813, in one or other, or both of which, the pursuer was accused of having acted, in his character of factor for the Duke of Argyle, from mean, unjust, and unworthy motives; and containing allegations which were false in themselves, injurious to the character, and offensive to the feelings of the pursuer?
2. Whether the defender, upon the 3d January 1815, or about that time, at Campbeltown, when the pursuer was officiating as judge of a roup, did, in the presence and hearing of a number of his Majesty's subjects, then and there assembled, declare that the pursuer was guilty of falsehood, and of partiality, in his character of judge of the
Page: 37↓
3. Whether the defender did, upon the 5th April 1815, or about that time, at Campbeltown, in presence and hearing of a number of his Majesty's subjects, then and there assembled, use words implying, or insinuating, that the pursuer was a corrupt or dishonest person?”
“The damages are laid at L.500 Sterling.”
The competency of a witness is the proper subject of questions in initialibus—his credit is the subject of cross-questions.
Cockburn, for the defender, asked the first witness for the pursuer, if he had had any conversation with the pursuer in regard to this cause?— Clerk, for the pursuer, here interrupted him, and said that, before putting questions in initialibus, the nature of the objection ought to be stated. Cockburn and Jeffrey answered, we will prove malice, agency, and partiality; in this country, it is usual to state objections,
Page: 38↓
Incompetent to ask a witness the contents of a written paper.
The witness, in the course of his examination, stated, that the defender said to the pursuer he would not be a Donald Campbell to him. This person had brought some charges against the pursuer, but had not followed them up; and the witness was asked if he knew the nature of an action brought against Campbell by the pursuer on that account?
A separate writing, on a paper produced by the pursuer, and proved by cross-examination of his witnesses, must still be given in evidence by the defender, if he requires it to be read.
On the defender's letter of the 15th, there was a copy of the pursuer's answer of the 17th.
Page: 39↓
Jeffrey, for the defender, required the copy of the answer on the back to be read, and said—Having, without objection, proved this copy by cross-questions, I am entitled to have it read to the Jury; and, if it be read, I will not lead evidence. It is not necessary to prove delivery, as the pursuer has not proved delivery of the defender's letters. But as the letters and copy are in the hands of the Jury, they are entitled to read this copy, which I shall shew must have been transmitted before the defender's letter of the 17th.
Clerk, for the pursuer, said, This is attempting an unfair advantage. It is a different writing altogether, and their only plea is, that it is on the same paper with the other letter. It is not proved that this letter was sent. This copy was not proved on proper cross-questions; and, even if proved, I am not bound to produce it. In the case Hyslop against Staig, the pursuer
Page: 40↓
The letter is not in the hands of the Jury till I deliver it to them. If there be evidence upon it, I will state it to them, and they will consider it. The questions are, Is this writing evidence? And, Has it been proved by cross-questions?
It is not sufficient to prove the retained copy of a letter, there must be prima facie evidence that the principal was sent.
It is merely proved that this writing was signed by the pursuer, not that it was sent to the defender. Indeed, it bears to be a retained copy. The fact of the other letters being addressed to, and in the possession of the pursuer, is prima facie evidence that they were sent. To render this copy evidence to the Jury, there must be some proof that the principal went from the pursuer to the defender.
The writing is the same as if it had been on a separate paper, and proved by cross-questions. In that case, the defender must produce it before it could be read, and then it would be his
Page: 41↓
In consequence of this decision, the defender afterwards produced the original letter; and, as this gave the pursuer a right to reply, the defender also called witnesses to prove the truth of the facts stated in his letters.
Er sk. IV. 4. 80.
Hutcheson v. Naesmith, 18th May 1808. M. App. p. 15. Delinquency.
Moncreiff, in his opening speech for the pursuer, stated, A private person is entitled to recover damages for a verbal injury. In this case, the offence is aggravated by being directed against a magistrate. Slander conveyed in a private letter is actionable.
Jeffrey, for the defender, contended, Words spoken in passion are not actionable. The defender was excusable for being angry at the roup, as the pursuer was in the wrong. He ought to have laid the sand-glass on its side while the bidding continued.
The letters are so old that they cannot now be a subject of prosecution. The first contains nothing objectionable, and the second only retorts the expressions used by the pursuer.
Page: 42↓
I have no directions to give you on the evidence; it is all on one side; the witnesses brought on the other merely proving the truth of the facts stated in the letters. Though the defender may be incorrect in the statement given, it is impossible to justify the answer by the pursuer, and it must diminish the damages. A man answering a letter, containing such an expression, cannot be expected to be perfectly cool, or nicely to distinguish to what the term applies.
It does not appear that the defender shewed these letters, or circulated any reports to the discredit of the pursuer.
Page: 43↓
Verdict for the pursuer, damages L. 100.
Counsel:
Clerk,
Moncreiff, and
Cuninghame, for the Pursuer.
Jeffrey and
Cockburn, for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, Robert Graham, w. s. and Mackenzie and Innes, w. S.)
