Crawford & Frame v Vance

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1908
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: (1907. No. 3588.)
• Date: 30 July 1908

Crawford & Frame

and

Vance (1).

K. B. Div.

Appeal.

(1907. No. 3588.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING's BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1908.

Defamation — Libel — Slander — Innuendoes — Privilege — Fair comment — Findings of jury — Perverseness — Inconsistency — Trial — Practice.

Held, by the King's Bench Division (Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and Madden, J.; Gibson, J., diss.), that the verdict for the defendant should stand.

Held, by Lord O'Brien, L.C. J., that letter (a), read as a whole, was incapable of being a libel on the plaintiffs; further, that the finding of the jury on the plea of justification, in the ordinary sense and signification of the words, was right in form, simple in language, and absolutely correct. As to the oral slanders, the findings in favour of privilege with regard to the charges about the pipes disposed of the question; and as to letter (d), on reading the whole of it, the alleged libel was of a very mitigated type, and was answered by the finding on the plea of justification, which there was, in his Lordship's opinion, ample evidence to sustain. In such a case, where the verdict is obviously honest and well considered, and approved of by the Judge at the trial, the Divisional Court should be astute to render the findings consistent.

Per Gibson, J. (admitting that there were no grounds for attributing perversity to the jury), the findings, except as regards speech (c), were so contradictory and uncertain, that a new trial could not be avoided.

Per Madden, J.: Though some of the findings were unsatisfactory, they did not support any allegation of perverseness on the part of the jury, or misunderstanding of other issues in the case, or affect the result of the trial, and that a re-trial was therefore unnecessary.

The judgment of the King's Bench Division was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Action for libel and slander, tried before Andrews, J., and a special jury of the county of Dublin on the 5th November, 1907.

The pleadings were as follows:—

Statement of Claim.

1. The plaintiffs carry on in partnership, at 5 Talbot Place, Dublin, the profession and business of contractors.

2. The defendant is, and was at the time of the publication of the slanders complained of, a member of the Corporation of Dublin.

3. Prior to the time of the publication of the slanders hereinafter complained of, the plaintiffs had tendered for the construction of certain sewers, mains, stations, and other works in the Clontarf Wards of the city of Dublin. The tender delivered by the plaintiffs was recommended for acceptance by the Improvements Committee of the said Corporation, being the committee charged with the management and control of the city sewers, and was subsequently approved and accepted by the said Corporation on the 7th day of January, 1907. The defendant was aware of the foregoing matters at the time of the matters complained of.

4. On the 4th day of March, 1907, the defendant, in a speech delivered by him at a meeting of said Corporation in the City Hall, Dublin, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiffs, in relation to their profession and business of contractors, and the carrying on and conducting thereof by them, the following words:—

1. “Mr. Chatterton had specified that the best stoneware pipes should be used in the Clontarf main drainage, and what happened? Mr. Crawford” (meaning one of the plaintiffs) “ordered an inferior second-class glazed earthenware pipe and the sample of that second-class pipe was in the possession at the present moment of the borough surveyor. Had these gentlemen” (meaning the plaintiffs) “succeeded in getting this contract without the matter being challenged, what would have happened if the borough surveyor of Dublin had been foolish enough to have passed this pipe? The whole main drainage of Clontarf would have been affected, and Messrs. Crawford & Frame” (meaning the plaintiffs) “would have made close on £2000 by that transaction. Now if they added that £2000 to the £1251 of premium the Corporation proposed to pay with the view of encouraging the establishment of a new industry in Dublin, they would get a sum of over £3000.

And also the words:—

“Were those gentlemen” (meaning the plaintiffs) “coming into this place with clean hands? It was not more than a month ago that the junior partner of that firm” (meaning the plaintiffs) “was charged by a member of that Corporation with attempting to corrupt a member of that body by offering him a bribe of £50. He did not know whether that charge was true, but it would not surprise him if it were true in face of what he had related. He mentioned this transaction deliberately, and on purpose to show that they were dealing with men” (meaning the plaintiffs) “who were not what they ought to be.”

And also the words:—

“He had been told that day that Alderman Cotton, and it was to his credit, arranged to dissociate himself entirely from this shady and very ugly transaction; in fact, he took it from the alderman's own mouth. How did these adventurous gentlemen” (meaning the plaintiffs) “succeed in button-holing and capturing members of that Council in order that they might further their interests, not only before the Local Government Board, but in that Council itself? All knew how eloquently their case” (meaning that of the plaintiffs) “was put forward by Alderman Irwin, and they knew something about Alderman Farrell's advocacy. Both gentlemen were directly or indirectly pecuniarily interested.”

And also the words:—

“We are unfortunately connected with men” (meaning the plaintiffs) “charged with deliberate corruption. It was a very hard thing to give a contract into the hands of a man who had made no attempt to clear himself of the charge. Another gentleman had been deliberately charged with taking this bribe, and that gentleman was sitting in the Council at the present time.”

And also the words:—

“We are determined to clear this Council once and for ever of this class of men, whether he is engaged as a contractor” (meaning the plaintiffs) “or sits in this Council.”

And also the words:—

“I am determined that whatever the Council may do, Messrs. Crawford & Frame” (meaning the plaintiffs) “won't get this contract, even if it should come to putting these men into the box before the Lord Chief Baron. I think it my duty to ask the Local Government Board for a sworn inquiry, and I believe that the majority of the members of this Council would willingly go into the box and come out of this matter with a perfectly clear character, but in saying that I am not sure that certain gentlemen would come out of it with a clear character.”

5. The plaintiffs repeat paragraph 4 hereof and say that the said words complained of mean that the plaintiffs had been guilty of fraudulent and dishonest practices and conduct, and were guilty of bribery and corruption, and were unfit persons to be employed as contractors.

6. The plaintiffs repeat paragraph 4 hereof, and say that the said words therein complained of mean that the plaintiffs had been guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

7. The plaintiffs further complain that on the 11th day of March, 1907, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiffs, in relation to their profession and business of contractors, and the carrying on and conducting thereof by them, the words following:—

1. “In moving the motions which I propose to submit with the permission of the Council—we are concerned in this matter to a very large extent—I shall take this letter seriatim and show you that these gentlemen” (meaning the plaintiffs) “do not come into this Council with clean hands; and if they did not come into this Council with clean hands on this day week, their hands are dirtier than they were then.”

And also the words:—

“Mr. Chatterton had specified that the best stoneware pipes should be used for the contract. I want to pay particular attention to the word ‘stoneware.’ Therein exists the gravamen of the charge. It is the sending of the specimen, instead of a sample of stoneware pipes. It was an inferior pipe—a second-class earthenware glazed pipe. Well, Mr. Chatterton had specified, and what happened? Mr. Crawford” (meaning one of the plaintiffs) “ordered an inferior, second-class, glazed, earthenware pipe, and the sample of that second-class pipe was in the possession at the present moment of the borough surveyor. Had these gentleman” (meaning the plaintiffs) “succeeded in getting this contract without the matter being challenged, what would have happened if the borough surveyor of Dublin had been foolish enough to have passed this pipe? The whole main drainage of Clontarf would have been affected; and Messrs. Crawford & Frame” (meaning the plaintiffs) “would have made close on £2000 by that transaction. Now, if they added that £2000 to the £1251 of the premium that the Corporation proposed to pay with a view to encouraging the establishment of a new industry in Dublin, they would get a sum of over £3000.”

And also the words: —

“Do these gentlemen” (meaning the plaintiffs) “suggest that Mr. Kelly, of Kilkenny, was about to play the same fraud on the Corporation that they attempted? That is the meaning of the words. No other meaning can be placed upon them.”

And also the words:—

“Now, gentlemen, this eminent firm” (meaning the plaintiffs) “these gentlemen, Mr. Crawford said, assured him when getting this sample pipe, this second-class earthenware pipe, that it would pass the borough surveyor of Dublin. I have not a shadow of doubt it would pass the borough surveyor if it was offered as a second-class earthenware pipe. It would probably be equal to any manufactured in the United Kingdom. But does he mean to insinuate that it would pass the borough surveyor as a first-class stoneware pipe? I find it impossible to...