Dwyer v Meehan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 February 1886
• Date: 24 February 1886
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

C. P. Div.

Before HARRISON AND MURPHY, JJ.

DWYER

and

MEEHAN

Hartley v. FlemingENR 8 T. R. 130.

Galwey v. MarshallENR 9 Exch. 294.

Connors v. JusticeUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 451.

Lumby v. AlldayENR 1 Cr. & J. 301.

Corcoran v. CorcoranUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 272.

Louthee v. DennyENR 1 Exch. 196.

Roberts v. RobertsENR 5 B. & S. 384.

Riding v. Smith 1 Ex. Div. 91.

Pemberton v. Colls 10 Q. B. 464.

Lynch v. Knight 9 H. L. Cas. 593.

Ward v. WeeksENR 7 Bing. 211.

Nuller V. DavidELR L. R. 9 C. P. 118.

Chamberlain v. BoydELR 11 Q. B. Div. 407.

Campbell v. WhiteUNK 5 Ir. C. L. R. 312.

Bellamy v. BurchENR 16 M. & W. 590.

Ayre v. Craven 2 A. & E. 2.

Connors v. JusticeUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 455.

Lynch v. Knight 9 H. L. Cas. 594.

Galwey v. MarshallENR 9 Ex. 294.

Dr. Sibthorpe's Case Sir W. Jones, 366.

Dod v. Robinson Alleyn, 63.

Parrat v. Carpenter Cro. Eliz. 502.

Connors v. Justice 13 Ir. C. L. E. 451.

Bellamy v. BurchENR 6 M. & W. 590.

Ayre v. CravenENR 2 Ad. & El. 7.

Moore v. MeagherENR 1 Taunt. 39.

Davies and Wife v. SolomonELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 112.

Allsopp v. AllsoppENR 5 H. & N. 534.

Lynch v. Kningt 9 H. L. Cas. 392.

Roberts and Wife v. Roberts 5 Best. & Sm. 384,

Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211.

Chamberlain V. BoydELR 11 Q. B. Div. 407.

Lynch v. Knight 9 H. L. Cas. 592.

Roberts v. RobertsUNK 33 L. J. Q. B. 249.

Connors v. JusticeUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 451.

Ayre v. CravenENR 2 Ad. & E. 7.

Slander Novice in religious community special damage.

138 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Ex. Div. excludes seamen. The employment of the deceased was as second 1886. mate, an employment outside the Act. The plaintiff, however, 11114"11" swears that he was also employed to superintend the discharge of LIMERICK the cargo. Part of the duty of a mate has reference to the super STEAMSHIP DOWSE, B., and ANDREWS, J., concurred. The cause shown was allowed, with costs, and the conditional order discharged. Solicitors for the plaintiff : Dundon tir Doyle. Solicitors for the defendant Company : D. 4. T. Fitzgerald. DW YER v. MEEHAN (1). Slander-Novice in religious community-Special damage. In an action of slander for words imputing unchastity to the plaintiff (alleging, in substance, that she had left her home, not to go into a convent, but because she was pregnant), the plaintiff alleged that the words were spoken of her as a novice in a religious community, and that, by reason of the slander (1) she was disqualified from continuing as such novice ; (2) disqualified from re-entering the community, as she bona fide intended, after leave of absence for the purpose of attending a sick relative ; (3) she was shunned and cut by her neighbours and friends. The plaintiff had admittedly entered the community as a postulant, and commenced her novitiate, but left within seven months of her admission, and was continuously absent for three years before the date of the slander. No eviÂÂdence was given that the slander reached the community. By the rules of the community six months should be spent therein as a postulant, and two years as a novice, before profession as a nun, until which the postulant or novice (1) Before HARRISON and Mummy, JJ. VOL. XVIII.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. acquired no status in the community. The sisters of the community were preÂÂcluded from holding any worldly goods, and, on profession, took vows of poverty-the income of their property (if any) being held for the benefit of the Institution; and the Rev. Mother was directed, according to the rules of the Council of Trent, to provide for the wants of those who were subject to her in food, clothing, &c. :- Held, 1st, that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was a novice at the time of the slander ; 2ndly, that, assuming the words to have been spoken of the plaintiff as a novice, they were not actionable per se or without evidence of special damage. Connors v. Justice (13 Ir. C. L. R. 455) distinguished ; 3rdly, that there was no evidence of special damage within the rules of law applicable to cases of oral slander sufficient to sustain the action. AcTioN for oral slander, claiming 500 damages, tried before Panes, C. B., at the Limerick Summer Assizes, 1885. The statement of claim alleged the plaintiff was, in 1882, received as a nun in the Roman Catholic Religious Community of St. Joseph's Missionaries, Mill-hill, London, and, as a member of such community, took certain vows of chastity, and other vows required from the members of the said community, and conÂÂtinued to be a nun and a member of the community at the time of the slander complained of, but had, some time previously, come to live at her father's residence, with the permission of the Superioress of the Community, for the purpose of attendance upon a sick relative. The slander complained of, and alleged to have been spoken of the plaintiff as a nun and as a member of the community, and to cause it to be believed that the plaintiff had misconducted herÂÂself as such nun, and in relation to her character, occupation, and capacity of a nun and a member of the said community, and of her conduct as such nuu, was ztat ed. in the 3rd paragraph of the claim as follows :- " Her [meaning the plaintiff's] character is broken with a child [meaning that the plaintiff had been debauched, and had been pregnant, and delivered of an illegitimate child]. She [meaning the plaintiff] left Ireland on that occaÂÂsion [meaning the occasion when the plaintiff went to London to join the said Community of Mill-hill], and it was not into a convent she went at all; and her father and people were glad to get rid of her at the time, so as not to disÂÂgrace them, and she did not come back until she was all right and over it," 140 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. C. P. Div. The innuendo attached to the words in the 3rd paragraph 1886. being that the plaintiff falsely represented herself to have entered DWYER a convent as a nun to conceal her shame, and that her conduct had MEEHAN. been such as to make her unfit to be a nun, or to enter a convent, and that she had been guilty of conduct unbecoming a nun, and had misconducted herself as such nun. The 4th paragraph complained of the following words, also alleged to be spoken of the plaintiff in relation to her character and occupation of a nun and member of the community, viz :- " Johanna [meaning the plaintiff]went away with a child. She is a public show [meaning thereby that the plaintiff had to leave Ireland to conceal her being pregnant of an illegitimate child, and had been guilty of conduct unÂÂbecoming a nun, and had misconducted herself as such nun]." The 5th and 6th paragraphs of the claim set out slanderous words substantially to the same effect, but without alleging that they were spoken of the plaintiff in any particular character ; and the plaintiff alleged, in paragraph 7, that by these slanders she was injured in her credit and reputation as a nun and a member of the said community, and had been prevented returning to the said community, and had been thereby deprived of the mainÂÂtenance and support which she was entitled to from the said community as a member thereof, and she had also been brought into disgrace amongst her neighbours and friends, and had been deprived of, and ceased to receive, their hospitality. The defence consisted of traverses-(1) of the plaintiff being received as a nun or as a member of the community ; (2) of the speaking and publishing of the words complained of ; (3) that it was of the plaintiff, and (4) that it was in relation to her character, occupation, and capacity of a nun or a member of the religious community mentioned, or of her conduct as such nun, that the words were spoken and published ; (5) of the defamatory sense, and (6) of the special damage. The above statement of claim fully sets forth the cause of action ; and the material facts, as proved at the trial, are substantially stated in the judgment of the Court. Leave to amend the pleadings in certain respects, as stated in the judgment of Harrison J., infra p. 145, was given at the trial by alleging that the words were spoken Von. XVIII.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 141 of the plaintiff as a novice in the community, and that by reason C. P. Div. of the slander she was disqualified from continuing as such novice 1886. or re-entering the community. Dwysa V. The Lord Chief Baron left the following questions to the MEEHAN. jury :- 1. Did the defendant Wm. Meehan speak and publish of the plaintiff the words following or any substantial part of them : " You were away with a child. You went to London to get rid of a child and when you were all right you came back." " If you could clear yourself of that character you would have done it long ago." Answer-Yes. 2. Did the defendant John Meehan speak and publish of the plaintiff the following words or any substantial part of them ? " It was never into a convent you went, but away with a child, and when you were all right you came home." Answer-Yes. 3. If so, was the plaintiff at the time of the speaking of the words a novice of St. Joseph's Missionary Sisters ? Answer-Yes. 4. If so were the words spoken of her as such novice ? Answer-Yes. 5 (a.) If you are of opinion that the plaintiff at the time of the speaking of the words continued to be a novice, did she, by reason of the speaking of the words, become disqualified from further continuing to be such novice ? Answer-Yes. (b.) If, on the other hand, you are of opinion that before the speaking of the words the plaintiff ceased to be a novice, did she bona fide intend to re-enter such community, and did she by reason of such speaking become disqualified from so doing, and was she thereby deprived of the support, maintenance, and other advantages which she would have received had she rejoined the said comÂÂmunity ? LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. I. Answer-We believe she had. the intention of re-entering the community and would be disqualified by reason of such...