Browne v Thomson & Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1912 |
| Date | 26 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 60. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Hunter, Lord President, Lord Kinnear, Lord Mackenzie.
ReparationSlanderSlander of a classTitle of individuals to sue InnuendoProvince of jury.
A newspaper published an article on Ireland stating that in Queens town instructions were issued by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestant shop assistants should be discharged, and that a shopkeeper who had refused so to act had had his shop proclaimed and had been forced to close it.
An action was brought by the Roman Catholic Bishop at Queens-town and six of his clergy (who averred that they were the Roman Catholic religious authorities referred to), in which they, suing as individuals, sought to recover separate sums of damages on account of the accusations in the article. The article was innuendoed as charging the pursuers with abusing their religious influence to procure the indiscriminate dismissal of Protestant shop assistants, and with ruining a shopkeeper's business.
Held (1) that the pursuers were entitled to sue for damages as individuals; (2) that it was for the jury to determine whether they or any of them were the Roman Catholic religious authorities referred to; and (3) that the article could bear the slanderous meaning put upon it.
On 10th October 1911 The Most Reverend Robert Browne, Bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Cloyne, residing at Queenstown, County Cork, and six other clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, who had all been resident in Queenstown as such clergy during the year 1909, brought an action against D. C. Thomson & Company, publishers and proprietors of the Dundee Courier, in which the Bishop of Cloyne sought to recover 2000, and the other pursuers sums of 500 each, as damages for a slander alleged to have been published by the defenders.
The pursuers averred:(Cond. 1) The pursuers are the sole persons who exercised religious authority in name and on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in Queenstown aforesaid in the year 1909. During that year the pursuers alone were the Roman Catholic religious authorities of Queenstown, and alone had power and jurisdiction to issue instructions to the members of their religious
institutions. (Cond. 3) In the Dundee Courier of Tuesday, 15th August 1911, there appeared an anonymous article entitled:
Sinister Side-Lights on Home Rule.
Irish Incidents showing feeling toward Britain.
By one who has lived in Ireland.
A print of said Dundee Courier of said date is produced herewith. Said article was written by or to the order of the defenders, and circulated widely throughout the United Kingdom. The defenders made every effort to secure for the article, and did secure for it, the widest publicity by pushing the sale of the number in which it appeared, and by permitting and encouraging the copying of it in other journals. (Cond. 4) The portion of said article, which is in the following terms:Religion makes all the difference in everything in Ireland. This incident will show what it can do and has done. Two years ago, in Queenstown, County Cork, instructions were issued by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestant shop assistants were to be discharged. One shopkeeper, a Roman Catholic, refused to discharge an assistant he had had for a number of years. The consequence was that his shop was proclaimed, and in three months he had to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knupffer (Pauper) v London Express Newspaper, Ltd
...understood to refer to every member of the class, in which case every member may have a cause of action. A good example is Browne v. Thomson & Co. 1912 S.C. 359, where a newspaper article stated that in Queenstown instructions were issued "by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that a......
-
Gordon v John Leng & Company
...Blackwood & SonsSC, (1902) 5 F. 25; A B v. C DSC, (1904) 7 F. 22; Morrison v. Ritchie & Co.SC, (1902) 4 F. 645; Browne v. Thomson & Co., 1912 S. C. 359; Couper v. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, 1914 S. C. 139; Langlands v. John Leng & Co., 1916 S. C. (H. L.) 102; Mazure v. Stubbs Limited, 1918 S......
-
De Klerk v Union Government
...82; Young v Kemsley, 1940 AD 258 at p. 273 (liquor licensing board); Apthorpe v Drew, 1908 O.R.C. 88 (land board); Browne v Thompson, 1912 S.C. 359 (ecclesiastical F 1958 (4) SA p497 authorities); Macphail v Macleod, (1895) 3 S.L.T. 91 (presbytery); Foxcroft v Lacy, (1614) Hobart 89; 80 E.R......
-
Aiken and Others v Police Review Publishing Company Ltd
...to refer to every member of the class, in which case every member may have a cause of action. A good example is Browne v Thomson & Co. [1912] SC 359, where a newspaper article stated in Queenstown 'Instructions were issued by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestant shop......
-
Identification of the Plaintiff
...to refer to every member of the class, in which case every member may have a cause of action. A good example is Browne v. Thomson & Co., [1912] SC359, where a newspaper article stated in Queenstown 'Instructions were issued by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestant sho......