Bruce v Leisk
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1892 |
| Docket Number | No. 97. |
| Date | 20 February 1892 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Stormonth Darling, Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord Kinnear.
Reparation—Slander—Privilege—Malice—Statements regarding candidate for municipal election.—
In an action of damages for slander the pursuer averred that in the course of a municipal election, in which he had been a candidate, the defender, who was an elector, had, in order to influence electors to vote against him, falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer had been bankrupt, and that he had made a very bad failure, meaning thereby that it was a dishonest and disreputable failure, and that his creditors had received only 1s. 6d. per £, and that the pursuer was, in consequence, an unsuitable person to represent the electors.
Held (1) that the words alleged to have been used by the defender might reasonably bear the innuendo put upon them, but (2) that assuming that they did so, the pursuer's statement shewed that the defender was privileged in using them, and that as malice was not averred, the action fell to be dismissed.
John Wilson Bruce, accountant in Glasgow, and resident in Hillhead, brought an action of damages for slander against David D. Leisk, warehouseman in Glasgow, also residing in Hillhead.
The pursuer averred,—(Cond. 1) ‘The pursuer is an accountant in Glasgow, and resident in Hillhead, of which he has been a police commissioner since the year 1889. He is at present a bailie of said burgh, having been elected in November 1890. The defender is a warehouseman in Glasgow, and resides in said burgh, and has taken considerable interest in the election of police commissioners for said burgh, and in the question of annexation to the city of Glasgow. The sequestration referred to in answer was never gazetted and it was recalled. The pursuer was not insolvent, and the defender knew or had the means of knowing that the sequestration was recalled immediately after it was granted.’ The answer to this article referred to was,—(Ans. 1) ‘Denied that pursuer is now a bailie. Quoad ultra admitted, subject to this explanation, that the pursuer's estates were sequestrated by warrant of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire on 14th March 1890, and in terms of the Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities Act, 1884, the pursuer became disqualified from holding the offices of commissioner and magistrate. Notwithstanding this, the pursuer continued to act in these capacities till the month of November 1891.’ (Cond. 2) ‘The City of Glasgow Act, 1891, provides for the annexation of the burgh of Hillhead to the city of Glasgow as at 1st November 1891. … At a public meeting of inhabitants of the burgh, which was held on 6th October 1891 within the Burgh Hall, Hillhead, pursuer was nominated for election as a councillor for the city of Glasgow.’ (Cond. 3) ‘The defender has opposed the pursuer in the various elections of police commissioners, and at the meeting referred to in the previous article he and other ratepayers who were present opposed the nomination of the pursuer.’
The pursuer stated further,—(Cond. 4) ‘In particular, the defender, in order to influence votes against the nomination of the pursuer, and also against his election, and to injure his credit, reputation, and feelings, has, since the date of said meeting—namely, during the month of October—stated at various places within the said burgh, to various ratepayers therein, that the pursuer had been bankrupt as a grocer, that he had made a very bad failure—meaning thereby that it was a dishonest and disreputable failure—and that his creditors had received only 1s. 6d. per £, and that the pursuer was in consequence an unsuitable person to represent the electors in the council of Glasgow, or used other words of similar meaning and effect.’
Two specific occasions having been condescended upon on which the alleged statements had been made, the pursuer then averred,—(Cond. 6) ‘These statements are absolutely false and calumnious, and were intended to injure, and have injured, the pursuer in his reputation and feelings, both as a public and private individual, and as a professional man in the said city of Glasgow, and particularly said statements were intended to prejudice, and did prejudice, the candidature of the pursuer as a councillor for the extended city of Glasgow, and have influenced a number of electors who would otherwise have been friendly to and supported the candidature of the pursuer, and the pursuer will be put to the expense of a contest, which otherwise he avers would have been avoided, in respect that only the requisite number of representatives would have been nominated at said public meeting of ratepayers. Said statements have further...
To continue reading
Request your trial