O'Donoghue v Hussey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1871
• Date: 20 February 1871
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

Before MONAHAN, C. J. KEOGH, and MORRIS and LAWSON, JJ. J., FITZGERALD and HUGHES, BB.

O'DONOGHUE

and

HUSSEY

Atkinson v. CongreveUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 109.

Wallace v. CarrollUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 485.

Murphy v. KellettUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 488.

Halloran v. ThompsonUNK 14 Ir. C. L. R. 334.

Whitely v. AdamsENR 15 C. B. N. S. 392.

Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. & F. 608.

Koeing v. RitchieENR 3 F. & F. 413.

Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117.

Wason v. WalterELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 73.

Wrigh v. WoodgateENR 2 C. M. & R. 573.

Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 181.

Davis v. SneadELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 608.

Fryer v. Kinnersley 15 C. B. N. 422.

Warren v. WarrenENR 1 C. M. & R. 250.

Jones v. StevensENR 11 Price, 235.

Watkin v. HallELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 396.

Huntley v. WardENR 6 C. B. N. S. 514.

Senior v. Medland 4 Jur. N. S. 1039.

Fishbourne v. Lord Lucan 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 210.

Harrison v. BushENR 5 E. & B. 344.

Finnerty v. TipperENR 2 Camp. 72.

May v. BrownENR 3 B. & C. 113.

Hibbs v. WilkinsonENR 1 F. & F. 608.

Koening v. RitchieENR 3 F. & F. 413.

Reg. v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117.

Regina v. VeleyENR 4 F. & F. 1117.

Cooke v. Wildes 5 E. B. & 328.

Ruckley v. KiernanIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 75.

Wallace v. CarrollIR 11 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 485.

Murphy v. KellettIR 13 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 488.

Fryer v. KinnersleyENR 15 C. B. N. S. 422.

Sayers v. BeggIR 15 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 458.

Libel Pleading Privileged Occasion Excess.

124 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Q. Bench. ORDERED that the motion be refused, without prejudice to any 1871. future motion the Defendant may bring forward in the event of CALLAN the Plaintiff obtaining a verdict. v. MARIIM. Attorney for the Plaintiff: White. Attorney for the Defendant : Kennedy. (IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.) O'DONOGHUE HUSSEY (1). Libel- Pleading-Privileged Occasion-Excess. Where a party publishes in a public newspaper statements reflecting on the conduct or character of another, the aggrieved party is entitled to have recourse to the public press for his defence and vindication ; and if, in so doing, he re-fleets on the conduct or character of his assailant, it is for the jury to say whether he did so honestly in self-defence, or was actuated by malice towards the party who originally assailed him. If the occasion be privileged, and the objection be, that the publication goes too far, and contains matter exceeding the privilege, the question whether it does so or not, is not a question for the Court to decide on demurrer, but one for the consideration of the jury on the plea of privilege. It is a reasonable mode of defence for a person, whose conduct and character have been assailed in a public newspaper, to state publicly that his assailant was known to be a person in the habit of making misstatements. WRIT OF ERROR from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, allowing demurrers to the third and fourth defences. The Summons and Plaint contained six counts for libel. The first count complained that the Defendant printed and published of the Plaintiff in the Cork Examiner a letter containing the following statement :-" It may be well, before I have done with the reverend gentleman, to inform you, for the benefit of your Cork readers, that his propensity to make injurious stateÂÂments devoid of foundation is of no recent origin ; I could hardly escape, as he tried his hand last year on the Archdeacon of his diocese. The Venerable Archdeacon, in a letter to the Tralee Chronicle, dated 4th March, 1868, and which you will find in the (1) Before MoNAAAN, C. J., KEOGH, and MORRIS and LAwsoN, SS. J., FITZGERALD and HUGHES, BB., • VoL. V.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 125 publication of the 6th, writes thus of him :- Ills bitterest enemy Exch. Chaco. could not place him in a more disgraceful pillory, for, owing to 1871. some fatuity, he has gibbeted himself before the gaze of an as- OTONOGHTTE tonished public by putting on record an exhibition of vanity and HUSSEY. uncharitableness, the like of which, thank God, are very rarely united in the heart of a priest.' Again he says--' To preserve it, my character, unsullied, is, in my opinion, an imperative duty, while to defend it against Father O'Donoghue's foul charges is, I feel and admit, a positive humiliation.' In these sentiments I cordially agree, and regret that even such a rebuke from an ArchÂÂdeacon to one of his priests could not cure his unfortunate propenÂÂsity to make erroneous statements. And I can well believe what his Archdeacon again says, that his parishioners have long since taken stock of him ;' that he has been weighed in the balance, not of his self-conceit, but in the discriminating judgment of an intelligent people (and I am sorry to say it) been found lamentably wanting." The second count was in respect of the same libel, contained in a letter written and published by the Defendant of the Plaintiff. The third count complained of the same libel, as published in the Cork Examiner. The fourth count complained of the same libel, as published in a letter. The fifth count complained of the same libel, published in the Cork Examiner. The sixth count complained of the same libellous words, as having been published in a letter. There were inuendoes in all the counts. The Defendant pleaded several defences, the third and fourth of which were as follows : THIRD DEFENCE. " And by way of further separate defence to each of the said • first, third, and fifth counts of the SumÂÂmons and Plaint, the Defendant says that before and at the time of the publishing of the words in such counts mentioned, the DeÂÂfendant was a land agent, largely engaged as such in the counties of Kerry and Cork and elsewhere in Ireland, and deriving large profits from his said calling, and was agent (amongst other 126 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Exch. Cham. persons) to Sir George Conway Colthurst, Bart., for the manage-1871. ment of certain estates in the county of Cork, known as the Bally O'Dox eamTE vourney estates; and while the Defendant was such land agent, v. HUSSEY. a public discussion arose, and was carried on in a public news paper called the Cork Examiner, being a newspaper circulating largely in the counties of Kerry and Cork, with reference to the laws affecting the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland ; and the same subjects, and also the management of the said BallyÂÂvourney estate by the Defendant, as such agent, were also disÂÂcussed at the meetings of a certain society called the Macroom Farmers' Club, which society was composed of a number of landÂÂholders, who held periodical meetings at Maeroom, in the county of Cork, near the said Ballyvourney estate, the proceedings at which meetings were, as the Plaintiff knew, reported in the public newspapers, and, amongst others, in the said Cork Examiner ; and in the course of such discussions, and incidentally thereto, and for the purpose of holding up the Defendant to public opprobrium, as a harsh and oppressive land agent, and before the printing or publicaÂÂtion of the words in the said counts...