Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action of damages for slander at the instance of William Bruce, M.D., LL.D., Dingwall, against A. M. Ross & Company, proprietors and publishers of the North Star and Farmers' Chronicle newspaper, published in Dingwall.

The pursuer averred that he was Medical Superintendent of the Ross Memorial Hospital in Dingwall, and a consulting physician in Dingwall and Strathpeffer. He further averred as follows:—“(Cond. 6) On the placards of the issue of the

Page: 131↓

defenders' newspaper of 9th May 1901 there appeared the following words:—‘Strange Affair in Dingwall—An Invalid's Adventure.’ In the issue of the said newspaper of the said date there appeared under the heading ‘Star Flashes’ the following paragraphs:—‘In the fear that we might do some harm to that admirable institution the Ross Memorial Hospital, we pondered long before we proceeded to pen this paragraph, but in the interests of humanity we are reluctantly compelled to draw attention to the cruel treatment meted out to a poor invalid who was unlucky enough to fall a victim to a disgusting piece of “red-tapeism.” This invalid, a chronic and incurable paralytic, was sent down from Gairloch to the hospital some time ago. We understand that the man was not a pauper. For some cause or other Dr Bruce, as medical superintendent of the hospital, resolved that the man should leave the hospital, and apparently going on the assumption that the man was a pauper, wrote one afternoon to the Poor Inspector for Dingwall instructing him to have the man removed from the hospital by ten o'clock on the following morning, failing which he would have him removed to an hotel in town at the expense of Dingwall Parish Council. The Poor Inspector of Dingwall wired to the Inspector at Gairloch and got a reply that the man was not a pauper, and pending receipt of a letter following the telegram the Poor Inspector of Dingwall took no action in the matter, not knowing whether he had any right so to do. We know nothing of the official dispute between Dr Bruce and the Poor Inspector of Dingwall, and we care less. What we are concerned with in the public interest is the cruel treatment meted out to the invalid on the next day by Dr Bruce. A cab was sent for and the unfortunate paralytic put into it and sent to an hotel in town. The hotel-keeper naturally refused to have anything to do with such a helpless individual, and there the cab stood at the hotel door, and there it seemed it would stand unless something turned up. The poor invalid felt his position keenly. He said he would sooner be put into his coffin than be treated the way he was, and complained bitterly. After a time the man was driven back to the hospital, and after some delay was re-admitted. He was not allowed to remain, however, and was sent up to the hospital at Strathpeffer, where he now lies. It was a very cruel proceeding. Pure red tape; nothing else. Napoleon the Great, on an historic occasion, declared that cruelty can only be justified by necessity, but whether necessity justified the proceedings above related is a matter regarding which we have our doubts.’ (Cond. 7) The said paragraphs are of and concerning the pursuer, and are false and calumnious. They falsely, maliciously, and calumniously represent that the pursuer had been guilty as a medical man and the Superintendent of the said hospital of cruel and inhuman conduct towards the said man Maclean; that the pursuer had, in disregard of his duty as a medical man and Superintendent of the said hospital, turned the said man Maclean out of the hospital in a cruel and inhuman manner, without making any provision for the care of him, in spite of his helpless condition, and that the pursuer had acted in a manner improper in a medical man, and contrary to his duty as Medical Superintendent of the said hospital.”

With reference to the statements in the article complained of, the pursuer averred (Cond. 4) that in consequence of a letter addressed to him by the Chairman of the Gairloch Parish Council, asking him if possible to get Maclean into an incurable hospital, “the pursuer wrote to the Inspector of Poor for Dingwall telling him that Maclean must be removed at once from the hospital, his case being unsuitable for treatment, and asking the Inspector to take him away to some place where he could be lodged and attended to, by ten o'clock on the following day. The Inspector, through his son, who is his assistant, informed the pursuer that he had been unable to find any person who would take and nurse the man Maclean. The pursuer thereupon himself proceeded to arrange for his removal, and went to the proprietor of the Royal Hotel at Dingwall and arranged that he should take in Maclean. The proprietor agreed to do so, but when Maclean arrived in a cab, and the proprietor saw how helpless he was, he declined to have him, and he was driven back to the hospital. (Cond. 5) When he found that the proprietor of the Royal Hotel would not admit Maclean, the pursuer sought for other accommodation for him, and found that he could be admitted into the Nicolson Memorial Hospital, Strathpeffer. For his admission there it was necessary to guarantee ten shillings per week and to engage to remove him when asked to do so. The pursuer arranged that Maclean should be received into the said hospital, and became personally liable in fulfilment of the conditions of his reception. Maclean was removed to the said Nicolson Memorial Hospital and remained in it for several weeks.”

The defenders in answer admitted the publication in their newspaper of the article complained of. They denied that the statements contained therein were false and calumnious, and averred—“(Ans. 7) The whole facts stated in the said paragraphs are true in point of fact, and the references to the pursuer therein contained consist entirely of fair criticism upon his conduct as disclosed by the facts stated. The matters referred to were matters of public interest and concern, and the comments upon the pursuer's conduct were fair and reasonable criticisms of the actings of a public official, and were made in bona fide and without malice.”

The defenders averred further that the whole steps for having Maclean removed from the hospital were taken by the pursuer at his own hand, and were unauthorised and ultra vires.

The pursuer pleaded—“(1) The defenders having libelled the pursuer, are liable in reparation as concluded for.”

Page: 132↓

The defenders pleaded—“(1) No relevant case. (2) The paragraphs complained of not being libellous, the defenders are entitled to absolvitor, with expenses. (3) The paragraphs complained of being a fair criticism upon the public conduct of a person holding a public office, made by persons interested in the proper discharge of the duties of that office, and having been published in good faith and without malice, the said paragraphs are privileged. (4) The statements made in the paragraphs complained of being true, the defenders are entitled to absolvitor, with expenses.”