Scottish Court of Session Decisions

That is the whole statement made by the pursuer, and the innuendo sought to be put upon it is that the defender meant “that the pursuer had been guilty of such criminal misconduct as would warrant his being apprehended on a criminal charge, and thereafter imprisoned.” It appears to me that these words which were admittedly used, or something like them, will not bear the construction sought to be put upon them. I think it a most unreasonable and forced construction, because the only imputation made against the pursuer by the defender was one of incompetence and neglect of duty, which as cashier and managing clerk of the company the defender had a perfect right to make if he thought himself justified. That was the only subject of quarrel. It is no doubt ludicrous to say that because of negligence the defender had the power to put the pursuer in prison, but either from anger or from some other reason the defender seems to have had the notion that in a contract of the kind between the pursuer and the company he had the power to enforce fulfilment by imprisonment, but it is important to observe that no criminal charge was made against the pursuer. The way the innuendo puts it is that the defender meant “that the pursuer had been guilty of such criminal misconduct as would warrant his being apprehended on a criminal charge, and thereafter imprisoned.” It is not suggested what kind of criminal misconduct is intended, and I think even if it were otherwise intelligible, the innuendo is not sufficiently precise. Some kind of criminal charge must be alleged. Apart from that, however, it is perfectly plain that no kind of imputation of a criminal offence could be intended. The details of the interview and misunderstanding between the parties show that the only question between them was a question of the performance or non-performance by the pursuer of his duties as clerk. I think, therefore, the case falls under the category of such cases as Broomfield v. Greig, March 10, 1868, 6 Macph. 563, 40 Scot. Jus. 568, where the Court held that an innuendo of a forced and unreasonable character could not be allowed to be put upon words not in themselves slanderous.

Lord Shand—There are two separate grounds, I think, for refusing an issue. The words “I will put you in prison,” following upon angry words previously used, satisfy me that this was a mere scolding interview. The defender was angry at the letter he had received, and charged the pursuer with being unfit for his duties, and followed that up with a threat of imprisonment. That was scolding and nothing else. If these words, however, had been spoken in all calmness, I should still have held that they would not bear the construction attempted to be put upon them. Imprisonment for debt has been abolished, but imprisonment to enforce obligations ad factum prœstandum still remains, and the defender might have thought that he had the right to enforce this contract of service by imprisonment. If there had been any allusion to loss of money or anything of that sort, it would be different, but in the absence of anything of the sort I am of opinion that the proposed innuendo cannot be put upon the words in question.

Lord Adam concurred.

Lord M'Laren—I am of the same opinion. It is true that our law gives more encouragement to actions of damages for slander than the law of England, for by that law actions for verbal slander are only allowed when the words complained of impute an indictable offence, or at least one punishable by fine or imprisonment. We make no distinction between written and verbal slanders in this respect, but we have never gone so far as to hold that mere unmeaning abuse—mere vituperation—will give a right of action. We only give compensation for defamatory language, that is to say, language which conveys some definite imputation as to the character or conduct of a pursuer.

It may seem hard to the pursuer that he should have no remedy for coarse abuse levelled at him, but he always has the power to repay the person who has so attacked him in his own coin, and in such cases the right is generally taken advantage of to the fullest extent.