Fisher v Nation Newspaper Company, Ltd, and Rev. John Rooney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1900
• Date: 25 June 1901
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Fisher

and

Nation Newspaper Company, Limited, and Rev. John Rooney (1).

Q. B. Div.

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'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.

1901.

Defamation — Libel — Pleading — Innuendo — Finding of jury against innuendo but that words were a libel.

A plaintiff in an action of libel set out the words complained of in his statement of claim and imputed an actionable meaning to them by an innuendo, but did not aver that they were libellous per se. The defendant pleaded that the words were no libel, traversed the innuendo, and pleaded privilege and fair comment. The jury found against the innuendo, but found that the words were a libel, that they were not fair comment, and that the defendants had acted maliciously, awarding £50 damages. The Judge at the trial thereupon entered the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff:—

Held by the Court of Appeal (reversing the decision of the Queen's Bench Division) that the course taken by the learned Judge at the trial was right, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the verdict and judgment.

Motion that the verdict and judgment entered in the action for the plaintiff be set aside, and that the verdict and judgment be entered for the defendants, or for a new trial.

In an action for libel the plaintiff delivered a statement of claim, the material portions of which were as follows:—

1. “The plaintiff is a shipowner and merchant, residing in and carrying on business in Newry, and was an elected guardian of the poor for the Newry Poor Law Electoral Division of the Newry Union for the years 1896–97 and 1898–99, prior to the events hereinafter complained of. Plaintiff was and is also a member of several other boards, public and private, in the said town of Newry.

2. “The defendants the Nation Newspaper Company, Limited, are the proprietors, printers, and publishers of a newspaper called The Daily Nation, published by them at their registered office, No. 90, Middle Abbey-street, Dublin, and the defendant

John Rooney is a Roman Catholic clergyman, residing in and officiating in the parish of Newry, and attached as a curate thereto.

3. “At the time of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was a candidate for one of the three then vacant seats as Poor Law Guardian for the West Ward of the Newry Urban District.

4. “The defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published, and procured to be printed and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following, that is to say:—

“Don't vote for Mr. Joseph Fisher, because this gentleman has been as intolerant and exclusive at the workhouse as Mr. John Quinn Henry. When did Mr. Fisher at any public board vote for a Catholic applicant if one of another religion applied? … Take the treatment recently meted out to Mr. Connolly, veterinary surgeon, by the bigotry of the Newry Guardians. Mr. M'Loughlin applied, with qualifications far superior to any other, for the last vacant mastership. He was rejected, not because he was disloyal or a politician, but because he was a Catholic. Mr. Fisher—the man who looks for your votes now—those votes he and his party tried to cheat you of—voted against Mr. M'Loughlin. Vote against Mr. Fisher as a protest against his own bigotry, as well as that of the old Newry guardians,”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff as a member of public boards and in his capacity of Poor Law Guardian had acted and voted from prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, and unworthy motives in the appointment of servants and officials, and generally in the performance of his duties as a member of said boards had ostracised and boycotted Catholics, and, irrespective of merit, had treated them, on account of their religion, unfairly and unjustly.

“Mr. Fisher is enriched by the toil of the Catholic workingmen. He wishes them to vote for him that he may use his influence as a public man to keep his feet upon the necks of Catholics and crush them down,”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff had acted unjustly, and from bigoted and intolerant motives to the prejudice of Catholics, his own workmen, and was thereby unfitted for public office and position.

“Mr. Fisher and his ‘Lumper’ M'Cartan broke up the Labourers’ Union, and left the poor quay porters without their legitimate means of defence against capitalist extortion,”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff as a merchant and employer of labour, had acted unfairly towards the quay porters.

“Men and women of Newry who have votes, are you going to sell your conscientious and religious convictions by voting for a man who, if he had the power, would trample your religion, and you who belong to it, in the dust?”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff was unfitted, through bigotry and intolerance, from acting as Poor Law Guardian or filling any public office of influence, and would misuse the said position in favour of bigotry and intolerance.

“Don't sell your conscience and your honour for any filthy consideration or the hope of any passing little gain,”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff sought to be elected as said Poor Law Guardian by corrupt and illegal practices and bribery.

5. “The plaintiff further complains that the defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published, and procured to be printed and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following, that is to say:—

“There are strong evidences that during his time at the Poor Law Board of Newry he gave votes which strongly savoured of bigotry. Why did Mr. Fisher on the 14th of last January vote for a Protestant nurse of three years' standing in preference to a Catholic nurse from Donegal of thirteen years' standing? Why did he vote for Miss West, a Protestant minor, and refuse his vote to Miss O'Keefe, who was not a minor but a Catholic lady from the West Ward and a neighbour of Mr. Fisher's?”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff as a Poor Law Guardian voted corruptly and unjustly, and acted from motives of bigotry and intolerance in the appointment of Poor Law officials and servants.

“This Mr. Fisher who now asks Catholics to support him was one of those Poor Law candidates who helped to extinguish representation for the Catholic poor of Newry in the Newry Workhouse,”

meaning thereby that the plaintiff, from corrupt and intolerant motives, extinguished the representation, and wrongly deprived electors of Newry Union of proper representatives on their Poor Law Board, to the injury and hurt of the poor of the said Union.

6. “In consequence of the premises the plaintiff has been and is greatly injured in his credit and reputation, and was defeated in his candidature at said election. In respect of the causes of action set forth herein, the plaintiff claims damages against the defendants £1000.”

The defendants severed in their defences.

The Nation Newspaper Company, Limited, pleaded, 1, that they did not write or publish, or procure to be written or published, the words complained of; 2, that the said words did not refer to the plaintiff; 3, that the said words were not written or published with, nor do they bear, any of the meanings alleged by the plaintiff; 4, that the said words were no libel; 5, that the said words were printed and published in these defendants' newspaper, The Daily Nation, on the occasion in the third paragraph of the statement of claim mentioned, and were and are fair and bona fide comment upon matters of public interest, viz. the conduct of the plaintiff in his public capacity, and the said words were published by these defendants without malice, and the publication thereof was for the public benefit; 6, the plaintiff did not suffer any such damage as alleged; 7, the alleged damage was not caused by the writing and publishing of the said words.

The defendant the Rev. John Rooney pleaded that the words complained of were no libel, traversed the innuendoes, and pleaded privilege and fair comment in the following terms:—(a) At the time of the publication of the words complained of in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff was a candidate for the position of Poor Law Guardian for one of the Wards of the Newry Urban District, and had previously been a Poor Law Guardian, representing the town of Newry at the Poor Law Board. The said defendant is an elector of the said Newry Urban District, and is a Catholic clergyman in the town of Newry, and the words complained of in the said paragraphs were written and published by the said defendant, he having an interest and a duty in the said matter, and the other electors for whom the words were published having an interest also therein with reference to the candidature of the said plaintiff, which is the occasion complained of, and were printed and published by the said defendant without malice, and bona fide believing the same to be true, which are the grievances complained of; (b) the words complained of in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim were a fair comment on a matter of public interest, and on the conduct and candidature of the plaintiff on the occasion complained of.

At the trial before Mr. Justice Gibson the plaintiff proved that he was not a member of the Board when M'Loughlin was a candidate, and denied that he had acted on the Board of Guardians from the motives imputed to him by the manifesto published by the defendants. No evidence to support the innuendoes other than that of the plaintiff himself was given. The joint publication of the manifesto was admitted by the defendants. This closed the plaintiff's case. Counsel for the defendants then asked for a direction on the ground (1) that the occasion was privileged, and (2) that the innuendoes were not proved. The learned Judge refused to direct the jury.

The defendant the Rev. J. Rooney was then called, and after he had given evidence, stating that he had written the manifesto without malice, and believing it to...