Pope v Outram & Company, Ltd

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date03 November 1908
Docket NumberNo. 43.
Date03 November 1908
CourtCourt of Session
Court of Session
Extra Division

Lord Guthrie, Lord M'Laren, Lord Pearson, Lord Dundas.

No. 43.
Pope
and
Outram & Co., Limited.

ReparationSlanderNewspaperAllegations made in divorce action.

It is prima facie libellous for a newspaper to say of anyone that in a process of divorce he is accused of having committed adultery with a married woman, even although the fact of his being so accused is admitted.

ReparationSlanderPrivilegeNewspaperReports of proceedings in Court of JusticeIssue.

In an action based upon a defamatory statement made in a newspaper, where the defence is that the statement complained of was a fair and accurate report of proceedings in a public Court of justice, it is not incumbent upon the pursuer to negative this defence in his averments. If the statement is prima facie defamatory, the pursuer is entitled to an issue. It is for the defender to establish such a defence, and it is a question for the jury whether he has done so.

Form of issue allowed.

Question whether a statement of defamatory allegations made in an action, which is published after the decision of the case, without any intimation of the result, can be a fair and accurate report of proceedings in a public Court of justice.

Henry Richard Pope, 89 Wigmore Street, London, brought an action of damages for slander against George Outram & Company, Limited, proprietors and publishers of the Glasgow Weekly Herald newspaper, Glasgow.

The pursuer averred:(Cond. 2) In November 1906 Mrs Ida Elizabeth Ensign, residing at 7 Holles Street, Cavendish Square, London, wife of Henry Asher Ensign, banker, New York, filed a petition in the American Courts for a judicial separation from her husband on account of his cruelty. As a defence to the said action, answers were lodged by the said Henry Asher Ensign. He also counter-claimed for absolute divorce on account of his wife's misconduct. In his pleadings in said action the said Henry Asher Ensign also made various scurrilous allegations regarding his wife's moral character, and in particular accused her of adultery with the pursuer. The action was set down for trial for the 31st October 1907 on the following issues, viz.:1. Was the plaintiff at the time of her marriage to defendant, to wit on or about the 27th August 1898, already the legal wife of Ramsay Kennedy of Glasgow, Scotland?2. Did the plaintiff on or about the month of August 1906, at the White Hart Hotel, Lincoln, England, commit adultery with one H. R. Pope? At the calling of the case the said Henry Asher Ensign made no appearance, and the Judge accordingly directed the jury to find for the plaintiff in said action, i.e., the said Mrs Ensign, on both issues. (Cond. 3) In their newspaper, of date 9th November 1907, the defenders printed and published an article with the following headings in large type:Strange New York Divorce Suit. Remarkable Allegations. Said article is in the following terms, viz.:A curious divorce suit, in which London figures to a large extent, began in the Supreme Court of New York a week ago. The petitioner for a separation is Mrs Ida Elizabeth Ensign, and the respondent, Mr Henry Asher Ensign, a well-known New York banker. The husband counter-sues for divorce, naming Mr H. R. Pope, an automobile dealer of London, as co-respondent. The latter, who is defended by Ex-Governor Black and Judge Olcott, two of the most famous lawyers in this country, joins with Mrs Ensign in vehemently denying the allegations. The petitioner (says the Daily Telegraph correspondent) specified numerous acts of cruelty. One night in New Mexico she says her husband drove her out of the window and compelled her to stay till daybreak on the lawn in her night clothes. Another time he threatened to shoot her at the Marie Antoinette Hotel, New York. In the cross-suit the husband makes the remarkable allegation that he first met his wife in Piccadilly in July 1898, and, blinded by uncontrollable infatuation, married her within a month, in order to reform her. He asserts that at the time of the marriage she was already the wife of a Mr Ramsay Kennedy of Glasgow, an assertion which Mrs Ensign indignantly denies. The respondent imputes misconduct to Mr Pope during a trip to Switzerland. Mrs Ensign, who is a beautiful woman, and who seems perfectly refined, says her family live in Surrey, and that she has come to this country to fight for the honour of herself and those dearest to her. The husband sailed in the Republic last week for the Mediterranean. In Mr Ensign's counter-petition he denied all the charges of cruelty, describing his association with the alleged Piccadilly girl in the following quaint fashion:It was a chance acquaintance, but I was so captivated with her beauty and her winning ways, that a few days only were sufficient to convince me that I could never live quite happily without her, and about a month thereafter we were married at St...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Allan Mackenzie Nicol V. (first) Caledonian Newpapers Limited And (second) Allan Caldwell
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 11 April 2002
    ...and should be excluded from probation. It was for the defenders to show that their report was fair and accurate: Pope v. Outram & Co., 1909 S.C. 230, at page 235; Cunningham v.The Scotsman Publications Ltd., 1987 S.L.T. 698 at page 699. As the article was a violation of the 1926 Act, the de......
  • George Islay Mcneill Robertson, Lord Robertson Of Port Ellen V. Newquest (sunday Herald) Ltd And Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 28 June 2006
    ...rule is that a person circulating a slander is answerable equally with the author of the slander." [15] In Pope v George Outram & Co Ltd 1909 SC 230 a newspaper had reported that the pursuer was accused in divorce proceedings of having committed adultery with a married woman, and that he de......
  • NICOL v CALEDONIAN Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Outer House)
    • 11 April 2002
    ...(1993) 16 EHRR 97 Noble's Trs v Economic Forestry (Scotland) Ltd 1988 SLT 662 Pepper v HartELR [1993] AC 593 Pope v Outram & CoENR 1909 SC 230 Richardson v WilsonUNK (1879) 7 R 237 Rickless and ors v United Artists CorporationELR [1988] QB 40 Rotaru v RomaniaUNK (2000) 8 BHRC 449 Scottish C......

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