Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action of damages for slander at the instance of Hugh Bonnar, butter merchant, Tullagan and Sligo, Ireland, against John F. Roden, medical student in the University of Edinburgh.

The case was tried before the Lord President and a jury on the following issue—Whether on or about the 14th day of October 1886, the defender, John F. Roden, wrote or caused to be written and sent, or caused to be sent to the Inspector of the butter market in Sligo, Ireland, the letter in the terms set forth in schedule annexed; and whether the said letter, or any part thereof, is of and concerning the pursuer, and calumniously represents the pursuer as having been guilty of fraud or dishonesty in the transactions therein referred to, or makes similar false and calumnious representations of and concerning the pursuer to his loss, injury, and damage?” Damages were laid at £1000. The letter was as follows—“Dear Sir Will you be able to recollect if Mr Hugh Bonnar bought in your market on Tuesday, August 17th last, a large number of firkins qualified by you as firsts? There is a lawsuit pending between him and us about twelve firkins—a part of the large consignment he bought that day—he sold us, which he described as being the finest Sligo firsts qualified by you. When we received the butter we found it was not equal to thirds, as it was oily and greasy. We returned the butter to him. You will oblige me very much by giving what information you can on the subject, as it is my conviction that this butter never passed through your hands as firsts, and even perhaps never entered your market. It is, Sir, a gross injustice to your market to have men coming here selling an inferior butter as Irish firsts. It is such misrepresentation that has caused our Irish butter to lose its hold on this and other markets, and the sooner Irishmen both at home and here put their foot on it, the better it will be for our Irish butter trade.”

At the trial it was proved that the letter was written by the defender and sent to the inspector, and that the inspector, without showing the letter to anyone, sent it to the pursuer of the present action. The jury found for the pursuer, and assessed the damages at one farthing.

The presiding Judge certified in terms of the Court of Session Act 1868, sec. 40, “that the

Page: 540↓

action was brought for the vindication of character, and was in his opinion fit to be tried in the Court of Session.”

Thereafter the pursuer moved the First Division to apply the verdict, and asked for expenses— Craig v. Jex Blake, July 7, 1871, 9 Macph. 973; Craig v. Taylor, Dec. 20, 1866, 6 Macph. 203.

The defender argued that the question of expenses was in the discretion of the Court. The damages awarded were nominal, and as there had been no publication the pursuer's character had not suffered— Duncan v. Balbirnie, March 3, 1860, 22 D. 934; Graham, v. Napier, Jan. 21, 1874, 1 R. 391.

At advising—