Bolton v O'Brien

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 February 1885
• Date: 23 February 1885
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. B. Div.

BOLTON

and

O'BRIEN

M'Dougall v. Tyrrell 1 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 465.

Hemmings v. GassonENR El. Bl. & El. 346.

M'Grath v. BourneUNK L. R. 10 C. L. 160.

Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 331.

Sheppard v. WhittakerELR L. R. 10 C. P. 502.

Griffiths v. Lewis 8 Q. B. 841.

Alfred v. Farlow Ibid. 854.

Usher v. DanseyENR 4 M. & S. 94.

Jones v. M'GovernUNK Ir. R. 1 C. L. 681.

Daines v. HartleyENR 3 Exch. 200.

Barrett v. Long 3 H. L. Cas. 395.

Capital and Counties Bank v. HentyELR 7 App. Cas. 741.

Cooke v. Hughes 1 Ry. & Moo. 112.

Mullet v. HultonENR 4 Espinasse, 248.

Weaver v. LloydENR 1 C. & P. 295.

Rex v. LambertENR 2 Camp. 398.

Rex v. Horne Cowper, 672.

Solomon v. Lawson 8 Q. B. 823.

Griffiths v. Lewis Ibid. 841.

Williams v. Stott 1 Cr. & Mee. 675, 687 ; cited in Barrett v. Long, 3 H. L. Cas. 395, 413.

Daines v. HartleyENR 3 Exch. 200.

Simmons v. MitchellELR 6 App. Cas. 156, 163.

Duke of Brunswick v.HarmerENR 3 C. & K. 10.

Libel Publication in separate issues of the same newspaper Pleading Innuendo Evidence Misdirection Excessive damages.

Vor,. XVI.j Q. B., O. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. for a wretched salary of 18 a-year. There is nothing in the Act of 1883 which makes the doctor liable to perform these duties. The order must be construed as applying only to duties existing at its date. The Local Government Board are required to assign the new duties before the medical' officer can be compelled to perÂÂform them, and as that was not done in this instance, the Plaintiff must be paid his claim in its entirety. We accordingly restore the verdict for the full amount sued for, and we award the Plaintiff his costs both in the Court below and here. FITZ GIBBON and BARRY, L.JJ., conctrred. Solicitor for the Appellant : C. B. Lloyd. Solicitors for the Respondents: Hodnett 81. Son. BOLTON ,t). O'BRIEN. Libel-Publication in separate issues of the same newspaper-Pleading - Innuendo-Evidence-Misdirection-Excessice damages. The. Defendant published in a newspaper, of which he was editor and pubÂÂlisher, several libels of the Plaintiff, who brought an action setting out in the statement of claim, which consisted of eight paragraphs, three libels on which he relied. In the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs the innuendoes put on the libels were that the Defendant intended to charge the Plaintiff with being guilty of felony of an unnatural kind ; in the 5th, 6th and 7th, the innuendoes put on the same libels were, that the Defendant intended to charge the Plaintiff with being guilty of an indictable offence of an unnatural kind; and in the 8th paragraph, the libel set out was the same as in the 3rd and 6th paragraphs, but with an innuendo that the Defendant intended to charge the Plaintiff with being guilty of felony. The libel set out in the 4th and 7th paragraphs was in the same words, and was in each paragraph preceded by certain prefatory averments ; and it appeared at the trial that the libel set out in the 4th and 7th paragraphs were taken from two different issues of the Defendant's newspaper. The Defendant by his defence to the first seven paragraphs, denied that he published the words complained of in the defamatory senses alleged, but did 98 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div, not traverse the publication nor plead justification ; and his defences to the 8th 1885. paragraph were justification and payment of nominal damages into Court. At the trial other passages in the same newspapers, besides those containing the BOLTON r, libels complained of, were shown to the -witnesses. 'I he Defendant failed to prove O'BRIEN. his plea of justification. The jury found a verdict for 3000 damages upon the first seven paragraphs of the statement of claim, and 50 upon the 8th paragraph. The Defendant having obtained a conditional order for a new trial: Held (by MAY, C. J., LA.wsosi and JOHNSON, JJ., diss. O'BRIEN, J.), that the verdict and judgment should stand for i3000, but that a remittitur dam= nuns should be entered as to the 50. Held, by MAY, C. J., that other passages of the same newspaper might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages charged to be libellous. Held, by O'BRIEN, J., that other publications by the Defendant, whether contemporaneous, or precedent, or subsequent, were not admissible in evidence on the question of the sense of the libel unless directly referred to, and in that way virtually made part of the libel complained of ; and that they were only admissible to prove malice or deliberation, or upon the question of damages. AcrioN for libel, tried before Barry, L. J., and a special jury at the Summer Assizes, 1884, for the county of Antrim. The statement of claim was as follows : 1. The Plaintiff is Crown Solicitor for the county of Tipperary. The Defendant is the editor and publisher of the newspaper known as United Ireland. 2. The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant falsely and ma liciously wrote and published of and concerning the Plaintiff the words following, that is to say :- "A Psscrous TRIO. "Mr. O'BRIEN.-' I beg to give notice that whenever the Government apply for a vote on account I will bring under the attention of the House the charge of felonious practices made against Mr. James Ellis French, late County InspecÂÂtor and Detective Director of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Mr. Gustavus C. Cornwall, Secretary to the Post Office, and Mr. George Bolton,' meaning the Plaintiff, ' and the conduct of the Irish Government in reference thereto." The Defendant meaning that the Plaintiff had been guilty of felony of an unnatural kind. 2. The Plaintiff also complains that the Defendant falsely and VOL. XVI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. maliciously wrote and. published of and. concerning the Plaintiff the words following, that is to say :-- " By shifts and schemes and stratagems of this description the nephew of Macaulay, aided by the officials of the House of Commons, avoids the shame of the exposure which must attach to himself and Earl Spencer, permitting felons like Cornwall, French and Bolton," meaning the Plaintiff, " to do the work of government in Ireland." The Defendant meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had. been guilty of felony of an unnatural kind. 4. The Plaintiff also complains that. heretofore the Defendant published and circulated reports that one James Ellis French had. been guilty of felony of an abominable kind, and the Plaintiff avers that Defendant, referring to the said reports, and founding a charge against the Plaintiff thereon falsely and maliciously pubÂÂlished of and concerning the Plaintiff the words following, that is to say :- " We take credit to ourselves for having rid the country of James Ellis French. A filthier wretch was not in the hire of the Castle. Care must be taken that the Castle does not even yet provide for him a pension, as was done for another scoundrel of like genus, Corry Connellan, who, having fled the Castle to avoid prosecution for a shameful offence, still draws a pension from some secret fund. Mr. James Ellis French has served us with a writ for damages to his character. Imagine the audacity of this ruffian-damages to his character indeed ! The next thing we expect to hear after this is that Corry Connellan, Mr. George Bolton," meaning the Plaintiff, " and the aristoÂÂcratic Mr. Wingfield, late of the Castle, have joined him as parties to the suit." The Defendant meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had been guilty of felony of an unnatural nature. [The 5th paragraph repeated the words contained in the 2nd paragraph, with the innuendo that the Plaintiff had been guilty of an indictable offence of an unnatural kind. The 6th paragraph repeated the words contained. in the 3rd paragraph, with the innuendo that the Plaintiff had been guilty of an indictable offence of an unnatural kind.] 7. The Plaintiff also complains that heretofore the Defendant published and circulated reports that one James Ellis French had LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. been guilty of an offence of an abominable kind, and that DefenÂÂdant, referring to the said reports, and founding a charge against Plaintiff thereon, falsely and maliciously published of and concernÂÂing the plaintiff the words following, that is to say :- "W e take credit to ourselves for having rid the country of James Ellis French. A filthier wretch was not in the hire of the Castle. Care must beÂÂtaken that the Castle does not even yet provide for him a pension, as was done for another scoundrel of like genus, Corry Connellan, who, having fled the Castle to avoid prosecution for a shameful offence, still draws a pension from some secret fund. Mr. James Ellis French has served us with a, writ for damages to his character. Imagine the audacity of this ruffian-damages to his character indeed 1 The next thing we expect to hear after this is that Corry Connellan, Mr. George Bolton," meaning the Plaintiff, " and the aristoÂÂcratic Mr. Wingfield, late of the Castle, have joined him as parties to the suit." The Defendant meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had been guilty of an indictable offence of an unnatural nature. The 8th paragraph repeated the words contained in the 3rd paragraph, with the innuendo that the Plaintiff had been guilty of felony. The statement of claim originally consisted of the first seven paraÂÂgraphs, and the eighth paragraph was added by way of amendment after the statement of defence had been filed ; and the statement of defence was also amended, and, as amended, was as follows :- 1. By way of defence to the 2nd paragraph of the amended statement of claim, the Defendant, admitting that he wrote and. published of and concerning the Plaintiff the words in said paraÂÂgraph complained of, alleges that he did not write and. publish them in the defamatory sense therein imputed. 2. As a separate defence to the said 2nd paragraph, the DeÂÂfendant says that the words therein complained of, were a fair and accurate report of proceedings which...