Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The pursuer in this action was the minister of the quoad sacra parish of Iona, the defender was a farmer in that parish, and the action was one of damages for slander alleged to be contained in the following letter, which was admittedly written by the defender, and sent by him to the Oban Times newspaper for publication, in which it appeared on 20th August 1881:—“Iona Parish.—Sir,—The Rev. John Campbell, minister of the parish of Iona, absented himself from his charge for six weeks without the consent of his congregation, or even intimating from the pulpit that he intended to take such leave of absence. Whether he acquainted his Presbytery of his intentions, and that they granted him such liberty, is not known here; but the fact that no supply had been sent to the pulpit by the Presbytery is apparent proof that they were ignorant of the real state of matters. It is sad to think that the church was closed during the six busiest weeks of the season, and the minister away, no one here knew where. He will lift his six weeks' salary all the same as if he had preached twice every Sabbath. It is to be hoped that the Mull Presbytery will do their duty, and not allow this part of their vineyard to be neglected, and call him to account. If not, the Synod will be duly acquainted with the behaviour of the rev. gentleman.—I am, & c, A Churchman.”

The pursuer averred—“By the said letter, and especially by the last sentence thereof, the defender falsely, calumniously, and maliciously represented and insinuated that the pursuer had, in violation of his duty as a parish minister, neglected his parishioners and congregation, and had, both in the past and at the date of the said letter, behaved in a manner unbecoming a minister of the Gospel, and deserving of the admonition or censure of the ecclesiastical courts.”

The defender averred—“The statements made in the said letter are true, and are not libellous. In particular, it is true that the pursuer was absent six weeks or thereby from his charge. That he had toot the consent of his congregation to that absence. That he did not intimate from the pulpit in the quoad sacra church of Iona that he intended to take such leave of absence. That no leave of absence had been asked or given by the Presbytery, and no supply for the pulpit was arranged for by the Presbytery during the pursuer's absence. That the said church was closed during the busiest weeks of the season. That the members of the congregation did not know where the pursuer was during the said time. From 1877 to 1880 the defender was treasurer of the said quoad sacra church of Iona, and is still a member of the congregation worshipping there, and he has all along taken, and still takes, a deep interest in its welfare. It was against the interest of the congregation that the church should be closed as it was from 21st June to 6th August, which is the tourists' season, and it was of importance, both as regards the usefulness and credit of the Church of Scotland in that district, that the church at Iona should have been open for divine service every Sunday at that time. Since the letter was written the defender has ascertained that the pursuer, at a service held by him in a schoolhouse at Creich, in Mull, where he officiates every alternate Sunday, intimated that he was to be from home for a Sunday or two, but no such intimation was, to the defender's knowledge, made in the Iona church. The defender considered it his duty, in the interests of the quoad sacra church in Iona, to give publicity to the way in which the pursuer was behaving.”

The pursuer pleaded—“The pursuer having slandered the pursuer, to his loss, injury, and damage, decree ought to be pronounced in terms of the conclusions of the summons.”

The defender pleaded—“(2) The letter complained of being a fair criticism upon the public conduct of a person holding a public office by a person interested in the proper discharge of the duties of that office, the said letter is privileged. (3) The statements made in the letter complained of being true, the defender is entitled to absolvitor, with expenses.”

The issue proposed by the pursuer was in these terms—“It being admitted that the defender Malcolm Ferguson, on or about 20th August 1881, wrote and caused to be published in the Oban Times newspaper of that date the letter contained in the schedule hereunto annexed—Whether the said letter falsely and calumniously represents the pursuer as having, during the period immediately preceding the publication of the said letter, neglected his duties as a parish minister, and as having during said period behaved and acted in a manner unbecoming a minister of the Gospel, and deserving of the censure or admonition of the ecclesiastical courts, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? Damages laid at £500.”

The issue proposed by the defender was in these terms—“Whether the pursuer absented himself from his charge in Iona for six weeks or thereby, in the months of June, July, and August 1881, without the consent of the congregation of the quoad sacra church of Iona; whether no

Page: 405↓

supply for the pulpit of the said church was provided during the pursuer's said absence; and whether the said church was closed during the said period?”

The Lord Ordinary (Adam) approved of the issue proposed by the pursuer, and disallowed the counter issue proposed by the defender.

The defender reclaimed.

At advising—