Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Mrs Brydon, with consent of her husband James Brydon, grocer and dairyman, residing in the Lawnmarket, and he, for his own interest, raised an action of damages for libel against Malcolm Brechin, a partner of a firm of butchers and poulterers. On or about 15th January 1881 the defender wrote and posted the following anonymous letter—which was marked on the envelope as “Private”—to Mrs Maclntyre, his wife's sister, who was then residing with the pursuers at Lawn-market:—“Is it possible that a daughter of Mrs Gray's is living in the Lawnmarket? Things have surely gone to a pitch now, Mrs Maclntyre, with you. The day is past when you would have spurned at living in such a place, and being the guest of Mrs Brydon, who in days gone past has not been your best friend, but the opposite; the writer is a wellwisher, and would ask you to consider your position, and take heed and turn from such a way of living as the present is with you. The writer hopes to hear of different behaviour, and not going under the roof of anyone but the one you should, viz., your mother, or go to some place where drink and your present companions wont get near you, so that temptation will be out of your way. The writer sympathises with your mother under her circumstances with your conduct.—Your Wellwisher.”

The pursuer averred—“The statements made by the defender in the said letter, which is in his handwriting, are of and concerning the pursuers, and are false, calumnious, and injurious. The said statements were intended to mean, and did mean, that the friendship of the pursuer Mrs Brydon for Mrs Maclntyre was treacherous, malign, and false in the past, and directed to tempt and lead away the said Mrs Maclntyre from the paths of honesty and virtue. Further, the said letter was intended to mean, and did mean, that the pursuers were keepers of a house of disreputable character, where loose and immoral people were allowed to associate with each other, and where Mrs Maclntyre would find drunken and profligate companions, and would thereby be exposed to temptation to do wrong.”

The defender denied this inuendo, and averred—“The letter was written solely with the view of inducing the defender's said sister-in-law to return to her mother's house. The defender had no idea of reflecting in any way on the character or conduct of the pursuers. The defender in writing the said letter was not thinking of the pursuers, but was only desirous of influencing his sister-in-law to return to her mother's house, which she ought not to have left. The defender knew very little about the pursuers, but he admits that it would have been untrue to say of them that they were not perfectly honest, decent, and respectable people. He believes that they were in every respect the opposite of what he is represented to have said of them in the said letter. The said lette rwas not written with reference to anyone in particular, in so far as reflection upon character is concerned, excepting always the defender's said sister-in-law. It was written with the best intentions, and for a proper purpose. The defender withdraws every expression in the said letter which can in any way reflect on the pursuers' character or conduct, and regrets very much that they should in any way have suffered in their feelings from any expression in a letter not referring to them and not addressed to them. The defender at the same time denies that the construction put upon the said letter by the pursuers is warranted by its terms.”

The defender pleaded—“(1) The pursuers' statements are not relevant nor sufficient to support the conclusions of the action.”

The Lord Ordinary ( Adam) approved of an issue for the trial of the cause, as follows:” Whether the letter was in whole or in part of and concerning the pursuer Mrs Brydon, and falsely and calumniously represented that the pursuers were keepers of a house of disreputable character, where loose and immoral people were

Page: 498↓

allowed to associate with each other, and where Mrs Maclntyre would find drunken and profligate companions, and would thereby be exposed to temptation to do wrong, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuers? Damages laid at £500.”

In the course of the debate it was stated that Mrs Maclntyre was in good circumstances, being the wife of a chief engineer in the Royal Navy, who was at present at sea.

The defender argued—The action should be dismissed as irrelevant. The inuendo sought to be put on the letter was extravagant and unreasonable. No facts and circumstances stated on record were sufficient to infer a libellous construction of the terms of the letter, which prima facie imported no libel. The letter was one written to a sister-in-law and marked as “private.”

Authorities— Kennedy v. Baillie, 5th Dec. 1855, 18 D. 138; Rodger v. MacEwan, 9th Mar. 1848, 10 D. 882.

The pursuer replied that he was entitled to put a meaning on the letter by inuendo, without setting out facts and circumstances on record to establish that it was libellous— Dun v. Bain, 24th Jan. 1877, 4 R. 317; Broomfield v. Greig, 10th Mar. 1868, 6 Macph. 563; M'Iver v. M'Neill, 28th June 1873, 11 Macph. 777; O'Brienv. Clement, 8th May 1846, 15 M. & W. 435.