Scottish Jury Court Reports

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Landles v. Gray. [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_79 (18 July 1816)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1816/1_Murray_79.html
Cite as: [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_79

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 79↓

(1816) 1 Murray 79

CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.

No. 11

Landles

v.

Gray.

1816. July 18.

Present, The Three Lords Commissioners.

A person using the same defamatory expression to two individuals at different times, one witness swearing to each time is sufficient.

This was an action of damages for slander.

Defence.—The accusation is false.

The pursuer is a fish-curer in Perth, and rents considerable fishings in different rivers in Scotland. As he did not reside in Perth, it was necessary to employ some one to manage his business there, and he accordingly entered into partnership with Mr Proudfoot, who was

Page: 80↓

to have one-eighth share of the business and a small salary. The nature of the case will appear from the following

ISSUES.

“Whether the defender did, in the month of January 1815, or since that time, in conversation with Thomas Proudfoot, the pursuer's partner in trade, on the North Inch of Perth, or other places, express his regret that Mr Proudfoot had any concern with the pursuer, as he, the pursuer, would cheat those connected with him, in accounting for the prices of the fish belonging to the concern at the London market?

Whether, at or about the time and places foresaid, the defender used the same language, or language of nearly the same import, to David Burns, tacksman of fishings in the river Tay? By all which the character of the pursuer has been greatly injured.”

“Damages are laid at L.300 Sterling.”

When the first witness was called, it was objected that he had acted as agent.

Lord Chief Commissioner.—Call the witness to ascertain the fact, and then you may take your objection.

Page: 81↓

Proudfoot swore to the slander stated in the first issue. Burns to that in the second.

Stair, IV. 43, 1, 2, and 3.

Hume, IV. 231.

Stair, I. 9, 4.

Jeffrey opened the case for the pursuer.

Murray, for the defender, contended, That the facts stated by the witnesses were not true, and were not proved. By the law of Scotland, two witnesses are necessary to prove a fact. where there is one witness only to each of two facts, there must be circumstances connecting them. In this case there are no such connecting circumstances. No malice or probable cause for the slander is proved; and in England, (from whence Lord Stair says we borrowed our law of slander,) proof of malice is indispensable.

Lord Chief Commissioner.—The defender having brought no evidence, the facts stated by his counsel must be thrown out of view. We are all of opinion that the two witnesses, though swearing to different facts, are sufficient, in law, to prove the slander. It is for the Jury to determine whether the testimony of the witnesses is sufficient to satisfy their consciences. Nothing has been stated to discredit the witnesses, and there is nothing either in law or fact to make us doubt that the slander is proved.

Page: 82↓

We are also of opinion that the slander in this case is actionable.

No special damages have been proved, and vindictive damages ought not to be given in any case.

Verdict for the pursuer, damages L. 50.

Counsel: Jeffrey and Fullarton, for the Pursuer.
J. A. Murray and D. Dickson, for the Defender.

Solicitors: (Agents, John Orr and Robert Stewart.)

1816

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010