Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action of damages for judicial slander raised by Robert Richardson, a sheriff-officer in Edinburgh, against John Le Conte, an engraver there. Le Conte had raised an action against a Mr William Scott Douglas on 20th June 1879, in which there was no conclusion directed against Richardson, but on the narrative that Douglas had formed a scheme for obtaining possession of Le Conte's property, and aggrandising himself at his expense, it was averred—“Said scheme was carried out in the following manner, viz.—‘On or about 20th May 1879 the said Robert Richardson went to the pursuer's residence, and on the instructions of the defender executed a pretending poinding and valuation of certain effects therein, including said works of art and the pursuer's household furniture, of the value of £130, but instead of making a proper inventory and valuation, as the said sheriff-officer was bound to do, he wilfully put a false and absurdly low value upon said valuable property; and in order to conceal the false and fictitious nature of said valuation he illegally and wrongfully slumped a vast number of articles into a very few lots”… [these lots as specified amounted in all to the sum of £12, 4s. 1d.] … “whereas the true value of said articles exceeded the sum of £130. And thereafter, on or about the 23d May, the said Robert Richardson and two assistants came to the pursuer's house and made a pretended sale of said articles to the defender, in slump, at the sum of £12, 4s. 1d., or at all events declared them to belong to him as at that value, in payment and satisfaction of his alleged debt of £12 of principal, with 4s. 1d. of expenses.’”

It was averred that these statements were false and calumnious of and injurious to the pursuer, and were inserted in the said condescendence maliciously and without probable cause, and that “they were not pertinent or necessary to the conclusion in said action, and the pursuer has thereby been injured in his character, his business, his business prospects, and his feelings. They falsely make it appear that under the pretence of covering a sum of £12, 4s. 1d., under a decree for that amount, he had consented to act, and acted, upon the illegal or improper instructions of Mr Douglas to

Page: 236↓

execute a poinding and sale of the whole of the defender's effects, amounting in value to £130; that he did so by the fraudulent device of slumping the various articles in the defender's house into a few lots, to conceal the false and fictitious nature of his valuation; and that he sold the said valuable articles thus fraudulently slumped and under estimated to Mr Douglas himself on said 23d May.” The pursuer stated that he had only acted in the execution of his duty as sheriff-officer.

The defender pleaded, inter alia, that the statements being substantially true, and separatim, not being malicious or without probable cause, he should be assoilzied.

The following issues were proposed by the pursuer and defender respectively:—“Whether in a summons raised and executed at the instance of the defender against Mr W. Scott Douglas on or about 20th June 1879, there were inserted statements in terms of the schedule hereunto annexed? Whether the said statements are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely and calumniously represent him to be a dishonest person and unfit to hold the office of a sheriff-officer, and were maliciously inserted or caused to be inserted in said summons by the defender, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer.—Damages laid at £500.

Schedule.

Said scheme was carried out in the following manner, viz.—On or about 20th May 1879 the said Robert Richardson went to the pursuer's residence, and on the instructions of the defender executed a pretended poinding and valuation of certain effects therein, including said works of art and the pursuer's household furniture, of the value of £130. But instead of making a proper inventory and valuation, as the said sheriff-officer was bound to do, he wilfully put a false and absurdly low value upon said valuable property, and in order to conceal the false and fictitious nature of said valuation he illegally and wrongfully slumped a vast number of articles into a very few lots” [amounting in all to the sum of £12, 4s. 1d.] “whereas the true value of said articles exceeded the sum of £130 and thereafter on or about the 23d May the said Robert Richardson and two assistants came to the pursuer's house and made a pretended sale of said articles to the defender, in slump, at the sum of £12, 4s. 1d., or at all events declared them to belong to him as at that value, in payment and satisfaction of his alleged debt of £12 of principal with 4s. 1d. of expenses.

Amended Issue Proposed by the Defender.

Whether the statements in the said schedule are true?”

The Lord Ordinary ( Craighill) approved of the issue for the pursuer as finally adjusted, disallowing the amended issue for the defender. There was the following note to the interlocutor:—

“ Note.—The issue proposed by the pursuer and adjusted by the Lord Ordinary was accepted by the defender as suitable for the trial of the cause. And with reference to the counter-issue, the question which was raised by the defender was not whether an issue in justification should be allowed, but assuming that he was to have an issue, whether he was not entitled to have an issue in the terms which had been disallowed.

The Lord Ordinary decided, that as it did not cover all which was in the pursuer's issue, the counter-issue as asked could not be granted.”

The defender reclaimed, and argued—That it was sufficient in a counter-issue of veritas to prove the truth of the facts as stated in the pursuer's issue without meeting them on the breadth of the innuendo in that issue.

Authorities— Torrance v. Weddel, Dec. 12, 1868, 7 Macph. 243; Ogilvy v. Paul and Others, June 28, 1873, 11 Macph. 776; M'Iver v. M'Neill, June 28, 1873, 11 Macph. 777.

At the instigation of the Court the innuendo was withdrawn, and the following issues as finally adjusted were approved of:—“Whether in a summons raised and executed at the instance of the defender against Mr W. Scott Douglas on or about the 20th June 1879, there were inserted statements in terms of the schedule hereunto annexed? Whether the said statements are of and concerning the pursuer false and calumnious, and were maliciously inserted or caused to be inserted in said summons by the defender, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”