Bernhardt v Abrahams
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 105. |
| Date | 19 March 1912 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Dewar, Lord President, Lord Kinnear, Lord Johnston, Lord Mackenzie.
Reparation—Slander—Slander uttered in foreign language—Proof—Innuendo.
Where the words complained of in an action of slander have been uttered in a foreign language, not only must they be set forth on record as spoken in that language, but their English equivalent must be set forth in the same way as an innuendo is set forth, and the pursuer must prove (first) that the words were actually spoken, and (second) that their English equivalent is that which he avers.
Martin v. M'LeanUNK, (1844) 6 D. 981, followed; Anderson v. HunterSC, (1891) 18 R. 467, distinguished.
Reparation—Slander—Proof—Innuendo—Innuendo not proved by witnesses.
The pursuer in an action of slander put in issue a private letter, which he innuendoed as accusing him of dishonesty, and which he alleged had been shown by the defender to three persons. The Court set aside a verdict of a jury for the pursuer, and ordered a new trial, on the ground that the innuendo had not been put to any of these persons, and that none of them had testified that he considered that the letter contained an accusation of dishonesty.
On 29th July 1910 William Bernhardt, a commercial traveller, brought an action of damages for slander against Benjamin Abrahams, a cigar merchant in Glasgow.
The slanders complained of appear from the following issues, which were approved of for the trial of the cause:—
‘1. Whether, on or about 5th June 1910, and in the defender's warehouse in Main Street, Gorbals, Glasgow, the defender falsely and calumniously stated to Solomon Crivan, tobacco and cigar merchant, 13 Robson Street, Govanhill, Glasgow, that he, the defender, had lost an action which the firm of P. Abrahams & Company had raised in or about May 1910 in the Sheriff (Small-Debt) Court of Lanarkshire, at Hamilton, against Mrs Angelina Verrechia, confectioner, Motherwell, owing to the pursuer having given false evidence upon oath in said action, or used words of the like import and effect concerning the pursuer, meaning thereby that the pursuer had been guilty of perjury, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
‘2. Whether, on or about 8th or 9th June 1910, and at the said Solomon Crivan's shop in Argyle Street, Glasgow, the defender exhibited to the said Solomon Crivan, and whether the said Solomon Crivan, at the defender's request, read a letter which he, the defender, had received from his solicitor, Mr Wilson, solicitor, Motherwell, dated 3rd June 1910, and which is printed in the schedule hereto appended, and whether the said letter is, in whole or in part, of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely and calumniously represents that the pursuer in his position of trust as the defender's traveller, had betrayed such trust, and was a dishonest servant to the defender?
‘Schedule.—“When this case was called today, proof was led as to Mrs Verrechia, Brandon Street, Motherwell, being due the account, Mr Abrahams' own traveller went into the box and stated that he had never seen Mrs Verrechia at Motherwell, and had no claim against her. In view of this it was impossible to proceed against her. The Sheriff stated that an action should be raised against Mrs Verrechia, New Stevenson, Holytown, and the party who was carrying on business under that name there, but there had been a good deal of transferring back and forward with that business, and I am not satisfied that Mr Abrahams' traveller has clean hands in the matter. Messrs Abrahams dismissed him towards the end of the year, and he is a very cantankerous person. Furthermore, Mr Abrahams weakened his own case by having two accounts in his books, one for Mrs Verrechia, New Stevenson, and one for Mrs T. Verrechia, The Cross, Motherwell. Under the circumstances, I am not sure whether Mrs Pacitti or Salvatore is the party against whom action should be taken, but in the circumstances think that probably Mr Abrahams' best course is to raise an action against Bernhardt, his traveller, as having sold the goods under false pretences. Of course, absolvitor with expenses was granted. I shall obtain a note of those and of my own outlays, and let you have them in course. Bernhardt, the traveller, was brought from Dundee, and as it turned out, would have been dear to have been brought five minutes' journey. There seems to have been a certain amount of lax and loose trading on the part of Messrs Abrahams' traveller. I shall be glad to have any further instructions in the matter that may be given, and remain,—
Yours faithfully, W. Wilson.”’
The statement alleged to have been made by the defender on 5th June, the subject of the first issue, was set forth in the record in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tei Abal v Anton Parau [1976] PNGLR 251
...must be proved by a witness who can be cross–examined." (para 1207, p 491). Counsel also referred to William Bernhardt v Benjamin Abrahams [1912] SC748 per Lord Dunedin at 751, Cook v Cox (1814) 105 ER 552 and R v Manasseh Goldstein (1821) 129 ER 1260. It seems that a foreign language means......
-
M'Vicar v Barbour
...v. WhyteSC, (1884) 11 R. 710; Dombrowitzki v. DombrowitzkiSC, (1895) 22 R. 906. 5 A v. BSC, (1895) 22 R. 402. 6 Bernhardt v. Abrahams, 1912 S. C. 748. 1 Ramsay v. Nairne, 11 S. 1033; Dougall v. Dougall, 11 S. 1020; Wilson v. Weir and StrangUNK, 24 D. 2 Dickson on Evidence, sec. 1808. 1 10 S......
-
Stubbs Ltd v Mazure
...the amount of damages was not raised, I express no opinion upon it. Lord Guthrie concurred. The Court adhered. 1 Bernhardt v. Abrahams, 1912 S. C. 748; Odgers on Libel and Slander, (5th ed.) p. 729. 2 Capital and Counties Bank v. HentyELR, (1880) 5 C. P. D. 514, per Brett, L.J., at p. 541. ......
-
John Mccue V. (first) Scottish Daily Record And Sunday Mail Limited And Another
...approach is consistent with the only authority to which I was referred by Mr Ellis, counsel for the defenders, viz. Bernhardt v Adams 1912 S.C. 748 at 752-3. In my opinion the article would not be read by such a reader as implicating Mr McCue as the licence-holder and tenant in dealings wit......