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 >> Mackintosh v. Squair [1868] ScotLR 5_635_1 (3 July 1868)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1868/05SLR0635_1.html
Cite as: [1868] ScotLR 5_635_1, [1868] SLR 5_635_1
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 635↓
Court of Session Inner House Second Division.
v.
Facts:
Held that opprobrious words which were not dictated by an animus injuriandi, and neither conveyed a special charge nor caused appreciable damage, did not ground a claim for reparation.
This was an advocation from the Sheriff-court of Nairnshire of an action in which William Mackintosh, flesher in Nairn, was pursuer, and Alexander Squair, builder in Nairn, was defender. The action was one of damages, brought up on two grounds—first, slander; second, assault. It appeared that the defender, on 17th January 1867, was passing along the Street of Nairn when he was struck by a snowball on the head as he was passing the pursuer's shop, that he suspected that the snowball came from the pursuer's shop, and that he accordingly rushed into the shop in a violent passion, and struck the door of the back-shop where the pursuer was, and gesticulated violently, and used a number of opprobrious expressions towards the pursuer, calling him a “low scoundrel,” a “damned scamp,” &c., &c. The pursuer made no complaint or demand for reparation for a month after the occurrence, but he then brought the present action; in the defences to which the defender tendered a full apology.
The Sheriif-Substitute ( Falconer) and the Sheriff ( Bell) assoilzied the defender, holding that the circumstances afforded no ground for awarding damages.
The pursuer advocated.
Mackenzie for him.
Fraser for respondent.
To-day the Court adhered, with additional expenses. Their Lordships held that there was no proof of assault; and that, as regards the slander, the words used were no doubt opprobrious and improper, but they were words used in a passion, with no deliberate animus injuriandi. They were, moreover, words of mere abuse, conveying no special charge, and causing no appreciable damage; and, in addition to that, there was the fact, which was itself very important, that no demand for reparation was made till the present action was brought.
Solicitors: Agent for Advocator— James Bell, S.S.C.
Agent for Respondent— John Galletly, S.S.C.