Scottish Court of Session Decisions

John Chisholm, superintendent of the Banff District Lunatic Asylum, Ladysbridge, Banff, pursuer, brought an action of damages for £2000 for slander against James Grant, solicitor and town-clerk, Banff, defender.

The pursuer averred, inter alia—“(Cond. 13) On or about 16th December 1912 the defender, at Ladysbridge Railway Station, shouted in a loud voice, ‘What does that mannie Chisholm know about treating lunatics? He is just a quack. We will sack him yet.’ The said statement was made in the hearing of, among others, Mr P. G. Watt, stationmaster at the said station, and Dr Ledingham, Medical Officer of Health, Banff, and was addressed to Mr Alexander Murray, bank agent, Banff, and a former member of the District Lunacy Board. These statements are false and calumnious, and the defender, when making them, deliberately and maliciously raised his voice in order to make himself heard by everyone about the station. The said statement was of and concerning the pursuer, and was false and calumnious. It represented, and was intended to represent, that the pursuer was unfit for his duties as superintendent of theasylum, that he did not know his work, and was not properly qualified for the work in which he was engaged, and ought to be dismissed from his post. The said false and calumnious statements were so understood by the said persons who heard them. (Cond. 14) The … slanderous statements above narrated were made maliciously and in order to gratify the ill-feeling which the defender had conceived against the pursuer.” [ Here followed specific averments of malice on the part of the pursuer.] “The defender's said actings and statements were all part of a course of conduct the intention of which was maliciously to cause injury to the pursuer's position as superintendent of the asylum.…”

The pursuer proposed, inter alia, the following issue for the trial of the cause—“Whether, on or about 16th December 1912, at Ladysbridge Railway Station, in the presence and hearing of Mr F. G. Watt, stationmaster at the said station, Dr Ledingham, Medical Officer of Health, Banff, and Mr Alexander Murray, bank agent, Banff, and others, the defender did falsely and calumniously say of and concerning the pursuer,’ What does that mannie Chisholm know about treating lunatics? He is just a quack. We will sack him yet”—or words of a like import and effect, meaning thereby that the pursuer was unfit for his duties as superintendent of the asylum, that he did not know his work, was not properly qualified for the work in which he was engaged, and ought to be dismissed from his post—to the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage?”

On 21st November 1913 the Lord Ordinary ( Dewar) allowed the issue.

Opinion.—[ After discussing three other issues which he disallowed, and which are not dealt with in this report]—“The fourth issue is in a different position, and I am of opinion that it ought to be approved. I think the expressions ‘What does that mannie Chisholm know about treating lunatics? He is just a quack. We will sack him yet,’ will reasonably bear the meaning which the pursuer seeks to attach to them, in view of the facts and circumstances averred on record. The defender argued that the meaning which he intended to convey, and did convey, was that the pursuer was not a duly qualified medical practitioner. That may be so. I express no opinion on that matter. All that I decide is that they are reasonably susceptible of the meaning which the pursuer suggests. It will be for the jury to decide, after hearing evidence, which contention is correct. I accordingly allow this issue.”

The defender reclaimed, and argued—The statements complained of were fair criticism of a man who held a public office, and could not reasonably bear the innuendo which the pursuer sought to put upon them. The word “quack” when used in the circumstances condescended on, was not slanderous. It only meant that the pursuer was not a duly qualified medical man, and the pursuer did not aver that he had a medical qualification— Long v. Chubb, 1831, 5 Car. & P. 55; Collins v. Carnegie, 1834, 1 A. & E. 695; Wakley v. Healey, 1849, 7 C.B, 591; Dakhyl v. Labouchere, [1908] 2 KB 325.

Counsel for the pursuer were not called upon to reply on the question of allowance of the issue dealt with in this report.