Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1Jury Trial
Subject_2Slander
Subject_3Reparation. Headnote:

In this case the pursuer was William Duncan jun., S.S.C., Edinburgh, and the defender was Matthew Brown, cabinetmaker and upholsterer, Edinburgh. The issues submitted to the jury were in the following terms:—

1. “1. Whether, on or about the 18th day of December 1867, the defender did write or print, and transmit or deliver to Thomas Steven Lindsay, accountant, Edinburgh, a letter dated the said 18th December 1867, and containing the following words, viz:—‘Although Duncan is an “honourable man,” I might have delicacy in referring even so trivial a matter to his oath and whether the said words are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely, maliciously, and calumniously represent the pursuer to be a man who was likely to commit perjury—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?

2. 2. Whether, on or about the 18th day of December 1867, the defender did write or print, and transmit or deliver to the said Thomas Steven Lindsay the said letter, containing the following statements—viz., (1) ‘A female who acted as servant to Mr and Mrs Duncan, and after her decease got the greater part of her body clothing and jewellery, and no doubt the poor thing had need thereof to help her and an unfortunate child, the fruits of her residence at the Grove.’ (2) ‘The servant at Nelson Street, before Lizie's arrival, had left in the family way. This may account, to some extent, for Lizie being there; at all events

   Page: 735↓

   it assists in proving the above item;and whether the said statements, or part thereof, are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely, maliciously, and calumniously represent the pursuer as being the seducer of his domestic servant or servants, and so being a person of immoral and dissolute habits—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?

3. 3. Whether, on or about the 11th day of February 1868, in the Parliament House at Edinburgh, the defender did publish, by means of printed copies, the said letter, containing the follow-ing words, viz.—‘Although Duncan is an “honourable man,” I might have delicacy in referring even so trivial a matter to his oath,’ and whether the said words are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely and calumniously represent the pursuer to be a man who was likely to commit perjury—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?

4. 4. Whether, at time and place aforesaid, the defender did publish as aforesaid, the said letter containing the following statements—viz., (1) ‘A female who acted as servant to Mr and Mrs Duncan, and after her decease got the greater part of her body clothing and jewellery, and no doubt the poor thing had need thereof to help her and an unfortunate child, the fruits of her residence at the Grove.’ (2) ‘The servant at Nelson Street, before Lizie's arrival, had left in the family way. This may account to some exent for Lizie being there; at all events, it assists in proving the above item’—and whether the said statements, or part there of, are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely and calumniously represent the pursuer as being the seducer of his domestic servant or servants, and so being a person of immoral and dissolute habits—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”

The damages were laid at £2000.