Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Roger Rooney, holder-on, residing at 33 Clarendon Street, Partick, Glasgow, raised an action of damages for verbal slander against Michael M'Nairney, a Roman Catholic clergyman, residing at St Peters, Hyndland Street, Partick, Glasgow.

The averments of the pursuer were to the effect that in the progress of a dispute between him and the defender, the St Peter's Branch of the League of the Cross, to which the pursuer belonged, had been ejected from an unused chapel in Bridge Street, Partick, which they had for some time been permit ted to occupy as a recreation room. That following thereon the League petitioned the Bishop of the Diocese on the matter, and he delegated it to two of his clergy, who, after meeting a deputation of the League, of whom the pursuer was one, decided that the chapel should be reopened to the League, and advised the deputation to go to the defender and arrange for the reopening.

In particular he averred—“(Cond. 10) … On the afternoon of 24th April 1907 the party waited upon the defender, who agreed to open the hall. After the interview came to an end, as the deputation was leaving the room, the defender, pointing the index finger at pursuer, said to him—‘You are the cause of all this trouble; you I'll keep my eye on. You are a source of evil in the parish, and the sooner you are out of it the better,’—or words of the like meaning, import, or effect. These words addressed by the defender to the pursuer were made in the presence and hearing of the said John Heggarty, Francis M'Cart, and James O'Brien, members of the deputation. The said statement had no connection whatever with or any bearing on what had taken place at the interview, but was purely the outcome of defender's ill-will to pursuer, conceived as aforesaid, and was made for the purpose of lowering him in the esteem of his friends and others. Pursuer asked defender to withdraw his words, but defender refused to do so. The following day pursuer wrote to the defender asking him to apologise, but he received no reply to his letter. (Cond. 11) The hall in which the League was held was opened on 27th April, and on 7th May when the pursuer entered the hall he was informed by the doorkeeper that defender had left instructions not to allow him (pursuer) to enter. This he did solely in consequence of his ill-feeling towards pursuer. (Cond. 12) The said statements made by the defender as condescended on were of and concerning the pursuer, and they were false, calumnious, and malicious, and were made without probable or any cause. They were intended to represent and did represent that the pursuer exercised an evil influence on those with whom he came into contact, that he was not a fit associate for people in the parish, that he had a demoralising and corrupting influence on his associates and other people, and that he was not a person fit to live in the community, and the defender's language was so understood by those who heard it. The defender was well aware that there was no truth whatever in the said statements.”

On the 29th November 1907 the Lord Ordinary ( Salvesen) pronounced the following interlocutor—“Finds that the allegations of the pursuer are not relevant and sufficient to support the conclusions of the

Page: 82↓

action: Therefore assoilzies the defender from the conclusions of the summons: Finds no expenses due to or by either party, and decerns.”

Opinion.—This action arises out of an alleged verbal slander. The words attributed to the defender are as follows—‘You are the cause of all this trouble; you I will keep my eye on. You are a source of evil in the parish, and the sooner you are out of it the better.’ It was maintained that these words were actionable without any innuendo, and, accordingly, the first issue proposed was one which simply put the question whether the words were false and calumnious. I cannot assent to that view. In my opinion the primary meaning of the words is not defamatory in the sense of making an imputation on the pursuer's character. They seem rather to be in the nature of a criticism of his conduct, and they are quite consistent with the view expressed by the defender in his answers that they were intended simply to convey that the pursuer was a cause of disunion in the parish.

On the other hand, I do not think it doubtful that the words would be actionable if there were any extrinsic facts set forth on record which might warrant a specific innuendo of a defamatory kind—if, for instance, the pursuer had averred that there were rumours existing regarding his habits in the use of alcoholic liquor, and undertook to prove that the words were calculated to convey to those who heard them that it was to these rumours the defender referred, the case might be properly sent to a jury. But here the only innuendo which the pursuer proposes is that the words represented that he exercised an evil influence on those with whom he came in contact, and that he was not a fit associate for people in the parish. This innuendo does not make the vague language of the alleged libel any more precise. Indeed, it is just a paraphrase of the language complained of. It is sufficiently obvious from the pursuer's other averments why he is averse to propound an innuendo except of a general character. The narrative contained in the record shows that there had been a dispute between the defender and certain members of the St Peter's Branch of The League of the Cross with regard to the use of a hall for recreation purposes; and that the defender having somewhat arbitrarily used his authority to close the hall, had identified the pursuer as a ringleader in the dispute. When, therefore, under the pressure of his ecclesiastical superiors he was induced to reopen the hall, he seems to have expressed himself strongly with regard to the pursuer's conduct. ‘You are the cause of all the trouble’ clearly means the dispute caused by the members of the branch, whether under the pursuer's guidance or not, in resisting the defender's authority; and the subsequent words, in the absence of any other definite meaning being attached to them, must be presumed to have had reference to the same matter. At the worst the language must be treated as merely vituperative, as in the case of Cockburn v. Reekie, 17 R. 568; and it is well settled that unmeaning abuse will not give a right of action.

“While, therefore, I hold that there is no relevant case, I do not propose to award the defender any expenses. He does not deny that before the action was raised he received a letter from the pursuer asking him to apologise, and that he took no notice of it. It is pretty plain that the reverend gentleman had lost his temper at what he regarded as the pursuer's insubordination; and I think the pursuer had some reason to complain, not merely of the highhanded way in which the defender acted, but of the unnecessarily strong language which was pointedly applied to him. I shall accordingly dismiss the action, and find neither party entitled to expenses.”

The pursuer reclaimed, and proposed the following issue for adjustment—“Whether, on or about 24th April 1907, in the defender's house, St Peter's, Hyndland Street, Partick, Glasgow, in the presence and hearing of John Heggarty, residing at 5 India Street; Francis M'Cart, residing at 9 India Street; and James O'Brien, residing at 33 Clarendon Street—all in Partick, Glasgow—and the pursuer or one or more of them, the defender did falsely and calumniously say of and concerning the pursuer, ‘You are the cause of all this trouble; you I'll keep my eye on. You are a source of evil in the parish, and the sooner you are out of it the better’; or did use words of the like import or effect of and concerning the pursuer, thereby representing that the pursuer exercised an evil moral influence on those with whom he came into contact—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer.”

The pursuer argued—(1) The words used by the defender were slanderous in themselves and therefore actionable; (2) even if the words used were not actionable per se, they were capable of bearing the innuendo suggested in the proposed issue— Macrae v. Sutherland, February 9, 1889, 16 R. 476, 26 S.L.R. 335.

Counsel for respondent were not called upon.