BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Christie v. Craik [1900] ScotLR 37_285 (12 January 1900) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1900/37SLR0285.html Cite as: [1900] SLR 37_285, [1900] ScotLR 37_285 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 285↓
[
In an action of damages for slander the question raised in the pursuer's issue was whether the defender stated that the pursuer had supplied hay and straw above the market price to the police commissioners of a burgh, of which body he was a member, “and had intimidated a public servant of the commissioners in order to induce him to purchase.” The issue also contained an innuendo to the effect that the words used imputed corrupt dealing by the pursuer in his capacity as police commissioner. The innuendo contained no reference to the charge of intimidation. The counter-issue proposed by the defender was, “Whether the pursuer, while holding office as a police commissioner, did supply hay or
Page: 286↓
straw at a price higher than the current market price, … and did induce the servant of the commissioners to purchase.” The pursuer contended that the words “by intimidation” should be inserted in the counter-issue before the word “induce.” The Court held that the pursuer was not entitled to insist on the insertion of the words, on the ground that the innuendo, in which lay the sting of the issue, contained no reference to intimidation.
An action was raised by James Christie, Forfar, against Robert Craik, Forfar, concluding for payment of £1000 as damages for alleged slander.
After sundry procedure the Lord Ordinary ( Kincairney), in an interlocutor dated 23rd June 1899, appointed two issues and counter-issues for the trial of the case, of which the first were in the following terms:—“(1) Whether, on or about the 29th October 1898, and within the West Burgh Schoolroom, Forfar, and in the presence and hearing of James Lowden, deputy procurator-fiscal, Forfar, John Macdonald, newspaper proprietor, there, Andrew Peffers, sheriff-officer, there, William Allardyce, beltmaker, there, Donald Macintosh, solicitor, there, David Davidson, farmer, Northampton, there, James P Rough, post-runner, there, John Cable, surgeon, there, Henry Tait, veterinary surgeon, there, John Laird junior, mason, Gowanbank, there, John Peffers, dyer, there, Andrew Easton, contractor, there, James Adamson, tacksman, there, Alexander Lyall, contractor, there, James Easson, joiner, there, or of one or more of them, the defender falsely and calumniously and maliciously stated that the pursuer had supplied hay and straw above the market price to the Police Commissioners of Forfar while he was a police commissioner, and had intimidated a public servant of said Commissioners named John Pearson, in order to induce him to purchase said hay and straw at said higher prices, or used words of similar import, thereby falsely, calumniously, and maliciously representing that the pursuer had been unfaithful to the public trust reposed in him as Town Councillor and Police Commissioner of Forfar, and had in his said official capacity acted corruptly for his personal benefit or pecuniary gain, to the loss, injury. and damage of the pursuer?”
“(1) Whether the pursuer, while holding office as a Police Commissioner of the royal burgh of Forfar, did on one or more occasions between 1st February 1897 and 31st October 1898 supply hay or straw at a price or prices higher than the current market price or prices to the said Police Commissioners, and did induce John Pearson, the servant of said Commissioners, to purchase said hay or straw on their behalf at a price above said market rate?”
The pursuer reclaimed against this interlocutor, and moved the Court to vary the terms of the first counter-issue by inserting after the word “did” and before the word “induce” the words “by intimidation.”
He argued, that without these words the counter-issue did not meet his issue, and that if it were necessary to put intimidation into the issue it must also appear in the counter-issue.
Argued for respondent—The innuendo contained in the issue did not refer to intimidation, and as the sting of the issue was contained in the innuendo it was sufficiently met by the counter-issue.
Page: 287↓
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“The Lords having considered the reclaiming-note for the pursuer against the interlocutor of Lord Kincairney dated 23rd June 1899, together with the notice of motion for the pursuer to vary counter issue, and heard counsel for the parties upon the amended issues and counter-issues proposed by the pursuer and the defender respectively, adjusted and authenticated by the Lord Ordinary: Adhere to the Lord Ordinary's said interlocutor of 23rd June 1899: Refuse the reclaiming-note and the motion to vary counter-issue: … Find the defender entitled to expenses since the date of the interlocutor reclaimed against, and remit,” &c.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Guthrie, Q.C.— Gunn. Agents— Mackay & Young, W.S.
Counsel for the Defender— Dean of Faculty ( Asher, Q.C.)— Kennedy. Agents— Gordon, Falconer, & Fairweather, W.S.
