Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an appeal from the Sheriff-court of Fifeshire in an action of damages for slander raised in the Sheriff-court at the instance of the Procurator-Fiscal of Auchtermuchty against Alexander Bonthrone, brewer and malster, atone time a Bailie and now Provost of the same burgh. The damages said to be sustained by the pursuer were explained to be “ in consequence of the defender having slandered him by stating within the Burgh Courtroom, at an adjourned meeting of the Licensing Magistrates on the 23d April 1872, that he (the pursuer), who was in attendance in the Court as Procurator-Fiscal to give information to the presiding Justices in regard to the applicants for licenses and the premises sought to be licensed, was a ‘damned puppy and a low blackguard,’ or by having falsely, maliciously, injuriously, and calumniously used and uttered words to that effect, whereby the defender represented the pursuer as a degraded, impertinent, base, vile, scurrilous, vicious, ill-conducted fellow, and utterly unworthy and incapable of holding the honourable and exalted office of Procurator-Fiscal for the burgh of Auchtermuchty, and the pursuer has not only been rendered contemptible and disreputable in the eyes of his fellow townsmen, but has suffered greatly in his feelings and character, and his integrity and usefulness as a public official has been greatly injured.” A minute of defence was lodged, to the effect that on the occasion in question the defender was offering some pertinent observations to the Bench when the pursuer improperly interfered and called out, “Sit down, Sir: You have no right to speak here;” that he thought the pursuer was rude in thus interrupting him, and he retorted the words “damned puppy;” that he regretted using these words; but did not remember having used the other words complained of—“low blackguard.” Proof was led; and the Sheriff-Substitute ( Beatson Bell) found that it was not proved that the defender used to the pursuer the words “low blackguard;” and that, in point of law, the words admitted to have been used by the defender in the circumstances were not actionable.

The Sheriff ( Crichton) adhered.

The pursuer appealed to the First Division of the Court of Session.

Authorities relied on—Ersk. Inst. iv. 4, 80; Graham, 13 D. 634; Brownlie, 21 D. 480; Denholme, 4 Murray's Jury Rep. 195: Sheriff v. Wilson, 7 D. 528.

The defender was not called upon.

At advising—