Richardson v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1879 |
| Date | 18 November 1879 |
| Docket Number | No. 60. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Craighill. M., Lord President, Lord Deas, Lord Mure, Lord Shand.
DefamationRight to publish judicial proceedings.
A summons which has been called in Court, but upon which no other step of procedure has followed, is not a public document, and any person who publishes defamatory statements contained in it is liable to an action of damages.
Observations on the principle of the publicity of judicial proceedings.
This was an action by Robert Richardson, sheriff-officer, Edinburgh,: against John Wilson, printer and publisher of the Edinburgh Evening News newspaper, concluding for 500 damages for slander.
The pursuer averred as follows:On 2d July 1879 the defender published the following paragraph:
Action of Damages by an Edinburgh Artist.
An action has been called, in the Court of Session, before Lord Craighill, by John Le Conte, Glanville Place, Edinburgh, in which he sues W. S. Douglas, Greyfriars Place, for reduction of a deed of poinding, and sale following thereon, at the defender's instance, and payment of 300 in name of damages. The pursuer says that during the last forty years in which he has followed his profession he has accumulated a vast number of proofs and copies of rare old engravings, and persons in search of such works of art were wont to come to him to be supplied with such. The defender, he alleges, formed a scheme for obtaining possession of these works of art, and in pursuance of this scheme he is said to have instructed Robert Richardson, a sheriff-officer, to execute a pretended poinding and sale of the whole effects of the pursuer upon a small-debt decree for 12, 4s. 1d., dated 12th July 1876, at the instance of the defender against pursuer. The sheriff-officer made an inventory of the pursuer's works of art and furniture, putting an absurd valuation upon the property, and slumping the articles into a few lots so as to conceal the false and fictitious nature of the valuation. The articles valued at 12, 4s. 1d. are alleged to be worth 130. A sale was made on the 23d May to the defender. In respect of the alleged illegal actings of the defender he claims payment of 300 as reparation.
The Robert Richardson referred to in the said article or paragraph is the pursuer.
The summons in the action referred to in the said paragraph was one raised in the Court of Session at the instance of Mr John Le Conte, and had been served upon the defender therein, Mr W. S. Douglas, on 20th June 1879, and had been called in Court on 1st July 1879. No further procedure had taken place on it, and it contained no conclusion against the pursuer of this action.
The statements are false and calumnious of and injurious to the pursuer.
The defender pleaded, inter alia;(1) Not relevant; (2) The paragraph in question being a bona fide and correct report of the averments made in an action then called and pending in the Court of Session, the defender was entitled to publish the same, and the pursuer is not entitled to damages for the publication thereof.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor:Having heard parties' procurators on the closed record, and more particularly on the first and second pleas in law stated for the defender, and on the issue proposed by the pursuer, repels the said pleas, approves of the issue, No. 12 of process, as finally adjusted and settled, and appoints the same to be the issue for the trial of the cause by a jury.*
The issue was,Whether, on or about 2d July 1879, the defender wrongfully published in the Edinburgh Evening News an article or paragraph
in the terms of the schedule hereunto annexed,* and whether the statements therein set forth are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely
and calumniously represent him to be a dishonest person, and unfit to hold the office of a sheriff officer, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
The defender reclaimed.
Argued for him;Although a stricter rule might have prevailed at one time, the tenor of recent decisions and judicial opinion was that all proceedings actually in Court, even if ex parte, were public, and might be reported.1 The summons had been called. It was a step of judicial procedure. The action was a pending process.2
Argued for the pursuer;The newspapers were only entitled to give the public facilities for hearing what they might have heard by coming to Court. The summons at this stage was not public property. The clerk of the process was prohibited by the Act of Sederunt from giving it up to any person except the agents.3 If the defender's argument was good it would extend to productions.4
At advising,
Lord President.The publication by newspapers of what takes place in Court at the hearing of any cause is undoubtedly lawful; and if it be reported in a fair and faithful manner the publisher is not responsible though the report contain statements or details of evidence affecting the character of either of the parties or of other persons; and whatever takes place in open Court falls under the same rule, though it may be either before or after the proper hearing of the cause. The principle on which this rule is founded seems to be that, as Courts of justice are open to the public, anything that takes place before a Judge or Judges is thereby necessarily and legitimately made public, and, being once made legitimately public property, may be republished without inferring any responsibility. But the defender in this case seeks to apply this rule to what does not fall either within the rule itself or the principle on which that rule is founded.
The pursuer states on record that an action of damages had been raised by a Mr John Le Conte against a Mr W. S. Douglas, and that the summons was served on the defender therein on 20th June 1879, and had been called in Court on 1st July 1879. The cause had proceeded no further. The pursuer says that summons contained statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial