William Rainy, - Appellant; Alexander Bravo, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1872 |
| Date | 11 June 1872 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 427
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF SIERRA LEONE.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony, II. Particular Colonies, 20. Sierra Leone; tit. Defamation, 7 Trial, a. Evidence, iii. Defamatory Words and Innuendoes-Actual Words must be proved-When Court will amend; tit. Practice, XXV. Pleading, h. Amendment and Striking at Pleadings, 1. a. S.C. L.R. 4 P.C. 287; 27 L.T. 249; 20 W.R. 873.
RAINY V. BRAVO [1872] IX MOORE N.S., 36 ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. WILLIAM RAINY,-Appellant; ALEXANDER BRAVO,-Respondent * [June 11, 1872]. In an action of libel the defamatory words set out in the declaration must be proved as laid, and it is a fatal variance if the words as alleged are materially qualified by evidence of words not contained in the declaration, although such words as qualified are still libellous [9 Moo. P.O. (N.S.) 48, 49]. The Defendant, after the publication of a libel and before the action was brought, destroyed the Letter containing the libellous words:-Held, that, as the defamatory writing was not in existence, secondary evidence of the contents of the Letter by Witnesses who heard it read was admissible, but that the actual words used as laid in the declaration must be proved, and not the substance or impression the Witnesses received of the words, as otherwise the Witnesses, and not the Court or jury, would be made the judges of what was a libel [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 46]. Before the declaration was filed the Plaintiff gave notice of his intention to move for a rule for the production of the Letter containing the words of the libel as set out in the declaration. An affidavit in answer by the Defendant stated that he, the Defendant, had destroyed the Letter, but made no objection to the terms of the alleged libel set out in the Plaintiff's affidavit:-Held, that the Plaintiff's affidavit being merely for the purpose of the production of the Letter was not admissible as evidence to prove the words of the libel [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 49, 50]. Where there is a variance between the declaration and proof the proper time to apply to amend the declaration is at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 50, 51]. A Judge sitting without a jury in a civil action, as provided by the Sierra Leone Ordinance, No. 4 of 1866, sect. 11, has power to adjourn and postpone his judgment, or verdict, and the appellate Court will not interfere with his discretion either as to adjourning judgment or allowing an amendment of the declaration, which may be granted after the Judge has begun to deliver his judgment. This was an action of libel brought in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone by the Appellant, a Barrister [36] practising as an Advocate and Attorney in the Courts in that Colony, against the Respondent, a Police, Magistrate in that Colony. The first and second counts of the Plaintiff's declaration set out the libel as follows:-"Tell Gilpin " (meaning thereby that a certain person was to tell one Gilpin, who was a Client of the Plaintiff's) " that I have prohibited Mr. Rainy from practising in my Court" (meaning thereby that the Defendant had prohibited the Plaintiff from practising in his said profession in the Police Court of Freetown), " and there was no necessity for him (Gilpin) to employ a Lawyer; but if he required a Lawyer, to employ Mr. Walcott" (meaning another Advocate and Attorney-at-law of the said Supreme Court), " who was a clever Lawyer, and, what is more, he is an honest man " (meaning thereby that the Plaintiff was not a clever Lawyer or an honest man). The Plaintiff laid his damages at 3000. Before the Plaintiff filed his declaration, he caused a notice of motion to be served on the Defendant's Attorney of his intention to apply to the Court for a rule calling upon the Defendant to show cause why the Plaintiff should not be at liberty to inspect and take a copy of the Letter written by the Defendant to the Police Clerk, and in which the libel complained of was set out. In this affidavit the libel was set forth precisely as it was subsequently laid in the declaration. [37] In reply to * Present: Sir James William Colvile, Sir Montague Edward Smith, and Sir Robert Porrett Collier. 427 IX MOOKE N.S., 38 RAINY V. BRAVO [1872] this affidavit, the Defendant, by an affidavit made by himself, swore " that the Letter referred to in the affidavit of the Plaintiff, had been torn in pieces by the Defendant, and the pieces thrown in the Streets." The Defendant pleaded not guilty; and issue being taken thereon, the action came on for trial on the 29th of November, and the 1st and 2nd of December, 1869, before His Honour, George French, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone without a Jury, according to the provisions of the Sierra Leone Ordinance, No. 4 of 1866, sect. 11, which abolished trial by jury in civil actions. At the trial the Plaintiff conducted his case in person, when the following evidence, as appeared from the Chief Justice's notes relative to the libel, was given on the part of the Plaintiff. Metzger, the Police Clerk, stated, " The substance of the part of the Letter which I read out I recollect. It was to this effect: I was to tell Gilpin that his case was not a case for a Lawyer, and that he (the Major) was detained at Government House, and could not come down that day. The Letter said he had heard Gilpin had employed Mr. Rainy (the Plaintiff), but Mr. Rainy was not allowed to practise in his Court until he had apologized for his conduct towards him (the Defendant) whilst he was sitting on the Bench at the Police Court some time before." In another part of his evidence the Witness stated, " I read Letter out because there was a direction in Letter for me to tell Gilpin and the people that on account of Mr. Rainy's conduct towards Magistrate (the Defendant) he had prohibited him from practising in his Court until he had apologized for his conduct towards him." The [38] Witness further stated in answer to a question of the Chief Justice: " There was a direction in the Letter to tell Gilpin and people about Plaintiff's conduct to Defendant, and Defendant having prohibited him practising in his Court until he had apologized for his conduct." Lake, another Witness stated, " The substance of the Letter was as follows: The Defendant wrote to Police Clerk, Metzger, to say he was at Government House, and would not be at Police Court before a certain time, which I don't now recollect; that Gilpin need not employ a Lawyer; that it was not necessary. But at all events, if he did so, he was not to employ the Plaintiff, in consequence of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too
...they were not defamatory of WP: at [32] and [33]. Capital & Countries Bank v Henty (1882) 7 SC 741 (refd) Rainy v Bravo (1872) LR 4 PC 287; 17 ER 427 (refd) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 78r 3 (1) J B Jeyaretnam and Lee Tow Kiat (J B Jeyaretnam & Co) for the appellant G S Hill and P......