Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Rev. Alan Reid, Parish Minister of Slamannan, raised an action against Frederick Johnston & Company, proprietors of the Falkirk Herald and Midland Counties Journal, concluding for damages for slander alleged to be contained in a report published in the defenders' newspaper on 14th December 1910,

Page: 107↓

of a political meeting held at Slamannan on 10th December 1910 in support of the candidature of Dr Chapple.

The pursuer averred, inter alia—“(Cond 2) For some time the defenders have been actuated by feelings of malice towards the pursuer, and have taken frequent opportunity of showing active hostility to him. In order to gratify their malicious feelings, they have taken occasion to call in question his fulfilment of his duties as parish minister, and have readily opened the columns of the Falkirk Herald to correspondents and contributors who were willing to attack the pursuer. On 9th July 1910, under the heading ‘Slamannan Notes,’ reference was made in the Falkirk Herald to pursuer's remarks at a school demonstration. The said reference contained a wholly inaccurate and fictitious account of pursuer's remarks, and falsely stated that the said remarks had caused great indignation among parents, teachers, and scholars, and in said issue the suggestion was made that pursuer should improve his pastoral efficiency by holding more services. Again, on 1st October 1910, the defenders gave space in their columns to certain statements from their local correspondent at Slamannan containing reflections upon the conduct of religious matters on the part of the pursuer and his elders in connection with the Parish Church of Slamannan, in respect that some communion cards were alleged to have been posted instead of delivered by personal call of the members of the kirk-session. These observations were followed on 8th October by a letter from a correspondent on similar lines, falsely representing that pursuer was remiss in visiting his congregation.…”

On 28th November 1910, issues having been approved and notice of trial given for the sittings, the pursuer moved in the Single Bills for a diligence for the recovery of documents in terms of a specification containing the following articles—“1. ( a) The manuscript notes or reports from which the paragraph headed ‘Slamannan’ in the issue of the Falkirk Herald newspaper of 9th July 1910 were printed; and ( b) all letters, memoranda, and other communications passing between the defenders on the one hand and Mr James Murphy, their correspondent in Slamannan, on the other hand, in the month of July 1910, having reference to the subject-matter of said paragraphs. 3. ( a) The manuscript notes of reports from which the paragraphs headed ‘Slamannan’ in the issue of the said newspaper of 1st October 1910 were printed; and ( b) all letters, memoranda, and other communications passing between the defenders on the one hand, and the said James Murphy on the other hand, during the period from 25th November 1910 to 7th January 1911, having reference to the subject-matter of said paragraphs. 4. All letters or other written communications addressed to the defenders or to the editor of their said newspaper or to anyone on the defender's behalf, ( a) by any of their correspondents, or ( b) by members of the public, having reference to the subject-matter of the paragraphs mentioned in the preceding article, between 1st October 1910 and 7th January 1911. 9. ( a) All shorthand or other notes made by any reporters or correspondents of defenders' newspaper of the proceedings of a meeting held in Slamannan on 10th December 1910 in support of the said candidature of Dr Chapple; ( b) all written reports of said meeting supplied to the defenders; and ( c) all letters, memoranda, and other correspondence passing between the defenders or anyone on their behalf on the one hand, and the correspondent or correspondents in Slamannan of their said newspaper on the other hand, in the month of December 1910, and having reference to the publication by the defenders of the matters complained of on record.”

The defenders objected to the above articles, and argued—The reports from the defenders' correspondents being communications between master and servant, were confidential and could not be recovered— Stuart v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company, July 9, 1896, 23 R. 1005, 33 S.L.R. 730. The defenders having accepted responsibility for the publication of the articles complained of, could not be compelled to produce letters from members of the public containing the statements in the articles— Lowe v. Taylor, June 24, 1843, 5 D. 1261.

At advising—