Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In October 1898 Peter Winn, cooper, Glasgow, raised in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against James Quillan, also cooper there, an action for £500 as damages for slander.

The pursuer averred— “(Cond. 3) Some time ago pursuer learned that defender was in the habit of slandering him to various persons, and pursuer has recently learned that defender's slanders have been going on for a lengthened period. Pursuer has ascertained and avers that defender has repeatedly within the past few years, falsely, calumniously, and maliciously designated pursuer to his workmen, and his family and others, by the epithet of ‘informer.’ Pursuer is an Irishman, and the defender is of Irish extraction, both his parents having been born in Ireland. Many of the friends of both pursuer and defender belong to the Irish nation. Amongst Irishmen especially the designation of ‘informer’ has long been recognised as an opprobrious, degrading, and calumnious epithet applicable to a person of a base and treacherous disposition, and who is regarded by his fellow Irishmen and others as a person unworthy of trust, and capable of committing base and treacherous actions, and betraying his friends for the sake of reward, and from sinister and disreputable motives, to the Crown or its executive. A person designated as an ‘informer’ is regarded, especially by Irishmen, as a person to be treated as an outcast from society, and to be shunned and boycotted, and as a person whom no one should transact business with or be on terms of friendship with. It was in the above senses that the defender applied the epithet ‘informer’ to pursuer in the subsequent articles.” The pursuer then specified particular occasions between 1885 and 1898 on which the epithet was applied to him by the defender. “(Cond. 16) In using or applying said word ‘informer’ to pursuer, defender intended thereby to represent, as he did thereby represent, that pursuer was a man of a mean and treacherous disposition, who had been guilty of mean and treacherous acts, who was utterly untrustworthy, and who, for the sake of reward and from sinister and disreputable motives, had basely betrayed his fellows, and disclosed secrets or given information to the Crown or its executive against Irishmen and others.” … (Cond. 24) Owing to defender's said false, calumnious, and malicious statements, the pursuer has suffered greatly in his feelings, character, and reputation, and in his relations with his friends and the public generally. He believes that his business has likewise suffered, and he fears that for a long period to come his business prospects and his well-being and comfort, and his social relations, will be injuriously affected by said false statements.

Page: 39↓

The defender pleaded, inter alia— “(1) The action is irrelevant.”

On 3rd February 1899 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Strachan) allowed parties a proof of their averments.

The pursuer appealed for jury trial, and proposed the following issues for the trial of the cause “1. Whether, on one or more occasions during the months of November and December 1888 and January 1889, and in or near the shop then occupied by the defender in Gallowgate, Glasgow, and the defender's house at 58 Whitevale Street, or in one or other of them, and in the presence and hearing of Hugh Carson, manager, Love's Stores, Moir Lane, Glasgow, the defender falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer was an informer, thereby representing that the pursuer was a man who, for the sake of reward, and from sinister and disreputable motives, had betrayed his fellows, and disclosed secrets or given information to the Crown or its executive against Irishmen and others, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? 2. Whether, on one or more occasions during the months of October, November, and December 1889, and in or near the office at 172 Buchanan Street, Glasgow, and the house 484 Duke Street, Glasgow, both occupied by Mr James L. Addie, accountant, and in or near defender's cooperage, Wilkie Street, Glasgow, aud his house 58 Whitevale Street, or in one or other of said places, and in the presence and hearing of the said James L. Addie, the defender falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer was an informer, thereby representing, &c. 3. Whether, on one or more occasions during the months of September, October, and November 1896, and in or near the defender's premises at Janefield Street, Glasgow, and in the presence and hearing of Patrick Hannigan, a cooper in his employment, the defender falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer was an informer, thereby representing, &c. 4. Whether, on one or more occasions during the months of September, October, and November 1896, and in or near the defender's premises at Janefield Street, and in the presence and hearing of Francis M'Cunnan, then in defender's employment, now a joiner at 22 Bellfield Street, Glasgow, the defender falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer was an informer, thereby representing, &c. 5. Whether, in or about May 1898, and in or near the defender's premises at Janefield Street, Glasgow, and in the presence and hearing of John Muir, a carter in his employment, the defender falsely and calumniously stated that the pursuer was a bloody informer, thereby representing, &c. 6. Whether, on or about 24th September 1898, the defender wrote and despatched to Mrs Elizabeth Quillan or M'Aulay, wife of Thomas M'Aulay, and residing with him at 8 Steel Street, Glasgow, a letter (printed in the schedule appended hereto), and whether said letter or part thereof is of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely and calumniously represents that the pursuer was an informer, thereby representing, &c. Damages laid at £500.”

Argued for defender—(1) The action was irrelevant. The word “informer “ was not slanderous. An informer was one who gave information to the Crown of a violation of the law. To say that a person did so was not to slander him. To call a man an informer with the addition that he had supplied false information of a specific nature with a definite result might be slanderous, but nothing of that kind was averred here, and the cases founded on by the other side did not apply. (2) All the issues except 5 and 6 should be disallowed on the ground of want of specification. A period of three months was too extensive for an issue to range over. The greatest latitude allowed by the Court was one month— Stephen v. Paterson, March 1, 1855, 3 Macph. 571; Grant v. Fraser, July 16, 1870, 8 Macph. 1011. The two first issues should also be disallowed on account of lapse of time. They dealt with statements made ten years ago. The Court would not permit expressions used in 1889 to be raked up after a lapse of ten years, and to be founded upon in an action of damages for slander. (3) The innuendo was strained and unreasonable. (4) Issues 3, 4, 5, and 6 should be disallowed, the statements therein complained of being privileged communications to relations and dependents— Nelson v. Irving, July 10, 1897, 24 R. 1054, opinion of Lord Young 1060.

Argued for pursuer—(1) The action was relevant. To call a man an informer had been held to be an actionable slander— Kennedy v. Allan, June 15, 1848, 10 D. 1293; Graham v. Roy, February 11, 1851, 13 D. 635. (2) In actions for repeated slander a larger latitude in point of time was always allowed than in ordinary cases, and a period of three months had been held not to be too great— Innes v. Swanson, December 8, 1857, 20 D. 250. When the slander had been repeated during a long course of time the Court would also permit an issue to be taken on statements made at the beginning of the period in question however distant the date on which they were made. (3) The innuendo was not unreasonable; it was a relevant interpretation of the word used. (4) None of the statements were privileged. They were not information on matters which concerned the persons to whom they were made.

At advising—