Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'Neill v. Carruthers [1867] ScotLR 5_220 (1 February 1867)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0220.html
Cite as: [1867] SLR 5_220, [1867] ScotLR 5_220
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 220↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
Action on slander dismissed as irrelevant, the statement put in issue not being in itself slanderous, and there being no inuendo on record.
“William M'Neill, miller, Crossmichael Mill, in the parish of Crossmichael and stewartry of Kirkcudbright, brought an action of damages for slander against Thomas Carruthers, farmer in Mountaintop in said parish. It appeared that in February 1867 the defender sent a quantity of corn to the pursuer for storage. The pursuer now averred that the defender, on two specified occasions, “falsely, calumniously, maliciously, and without probable cause, stated that he had delivered to the pursuer, not 37 bushels, but 47 bushels of corn, and the pursuer had failed to account for ten of these bushels, and that he would force him to account for the ten bushels before the Sheriff, or did use words of and concerning the pursuer of a like import and effect.” He proposed issues founded on this averment. The defender contended that the action was irrelevant.
The Lord Ordinary ( Barcaple) reported the case on issues, stating his opinion that the statement put in issue—viz., that the pursuer failed to account for a part of the oats stored with him, and that the defender would force him to account before the Sheriff—was not defamatory in the legal sense of the term.
W. M'Laren for pursuer.
Solicitor-General ( Millar) and Scott for defender were not called on.
The Court unanimously dismissed the action as irrelevant.
The Lord President said that the case was one of the clearest he had ever seen. There was no possible ground for holding that the statement made by the defender was slanderous in itself. It might, perhaps, have been made so by inuendo, but there was no inuendo on record, and the action must therefore be dismissed.
Action dismissed with expenses.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— J. M. Macqueen, S S.C.
Agent for Defender— W. S. Stuart, S.S.C.