Malcolm v Moore

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date25 October 1901
Date25 October 1901
Docket NumberNo. 8.
CourtCourt of Session
Court of Session
1st Division

Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.

No. 8.
Malcolm
and
Moore.

ExpensesReparationSlanderTender and ApologyQualified Apology.

In an action of damages for slander the defender denied any recollection of having uttered the statement complained of, but, on the assumption that he had uttered it, offered an apology in which he expressed regret for, and unreservedly withdrew, and admitted that there were no grounds for, what had been said, at the same time tendering a sum of 51. The jury awarded to the pursuer 50 of damages. Held that the defender was entitled to expenses from the date of lodging the tender and apology.

This was an action of damages for slander, the averment of the pursuer being that the defender had stated of the pursuer that he was a thief and a liar, and that he had stolen the defender's pocket-book.

The defender on record denied that he had used the words complained of, and explained that on the day when he was said to have used them the pursuer and defender had been drinking together, and that by the time that they arrived at a shop where the defender first missed his pocket-book, the defender was under the influence of liquor. Although annoyed at the loss of his pocket-book, he did not intend to charge the pursuer with having meddled with it, and is not conscious of having done so. If, however, anything said by the defender could have been construed as reflecting on the pursuer's character in any way, or imputing mendacity or dishonesty to him, the defender expresses regret for having used language capable of such interpretation, and unreservedly retracts the same, as there were no grounds therefor. Under reservation of all his pleas, the defender hereby tenders to the pursuer the sum of 51 sterling, with the expenses of process.*

Issues were subsequently approved of, and the case having gone to trial before the Lord President and a jury, the jury returned a verdict for the pursuer, assessing the damages at 50.

Thereafter the pursuer moved the Court to apply the verdict, and to find him entitled to expenses. The defender moved the Court to find him entitled to expenses after the date of the tender and apology.

Argued for the pursuer;The apology was insufficient. It was qualified and only hypothetical, and the acceptance of it by the pursuer would not have vindicated his character so effectively as the verdict of the jury had done. A money tender in such circumstances, though exceeding the amount ultimately assessed by the jury as damages, was, in the absence of an absolute and unqualified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ashtrom Anguilla Ltd Claimant/Respondent v Flag Luxury Properties (Anguilla) LLC First Defendant/Applicant v Temenos Development Inc. Second Defendant/Applicant [ECSC]
    • Anguilla
    • High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
    • 30 November 2010
    ...the Flag is liable for breach of contract in relation to said contracts. See paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Claim Form. See also paragraphs 4(f), 23(b), 43 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. 52 If, as Ashtrom says, Flag is a party to the 29 Villas contract and The Sky Villas contract, any claim b......
  • Ashtrom Anguilla Ltd v Flag Luxury Properties (Anguilla) Llc and Temenos Development Inc.
    • Anguilla
    • High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
    • 30 November 2010
    ...the Flag is liable for breach of contract in relation to said contracts. See paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Claim Form. See also paragraphs 4(f), 23(b), 43 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. 52 If, as Ashtrom says, Flag is a party to the 29 Villas contract and The Sky Villas contract, any claim b......
  • Nguyen v. Hu,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 13 January 2023
    ...2023-01-11T20:06:46Z Privileged 034a106e-6316-442c-ad35-738afd673d2b cddc1229-ac2a-4b97-b78a-0e5cacb5865c 754f7256-234e-4f23-b100-c84da7f46271 0 Clean Clean false 6 pt 2 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE ...
  • Nyantakyi v. Aryee,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 23 January 2023
    ...87 24 12289 16.00 true 2023-01-10T21:37:26Z Standard 034a106e-6316-442c-ad35-738afd673d2b cddc1229-ac2a-4b97-b78a-0e5cacb5865c 4b8687b0-2749-4f23-a125-f32b8076c859 Clean false false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Private FCPA Enforcement
    • United States
    • Wiley American Business Law Journal No. 49-3, September 2012
    • 1 September 2012
    ...at http://www.debevoise.com/f‌iles/Publication/027aee9f-9006-4037-8195-6da0c6a55c00/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/4ca57a9a-7232-4f23-a0d8-14cb3eb008e2/FCPAUpdateJune2011.pdf.194Lamb, 915 F.2d at 1029–30.195See supra note 23 and accompanying text.196Mukasey Hearings,supra note 180, at 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT