Lynam v Gowing (1880)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 April 1880
• Date: 21 April 1880
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

Before FITZGERALD and DOWSE, BB.

LYNAM

and

GOWING.

Delegal v. HighleyENR 3 Bing. N. C. 950.

v. SanfordUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 426.

Stevens v. Sampson 5 Ex. Div. 53.

Popham v. PickburnENR 7 H. & N. 891.

Kane v. MulvanyUNKIR I. R. 2 C. L. 402.

Purcell v. Sowler 2 C. P. Div. 215.

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

Usill v. Hales 3 C. P. Div. 319.

Simmonds v. DunneUNK Ir R. 5 C. L. 358.

Libel Privileged communication Report of proceedings at corner's inquest Unsworn statement of bystander coroner Ratepayer's communication to cheif secretary of Lord Lieutenant of defamatory statements made before corner.

LYNAM v GOWING (1). .Ex. Div. 1880. Libel-Privileged communication-Report of proceedings at coroner's inquest April 21, Unsworn statement of bystander-Coroner-Ratepayer's communication to Chief Secretary of Lord Lieutenant of defamatory statements made before coroner. In an action for libel, the Plaintiff alleged that, being relieving officer of a certain union, and having been examined as a witness at an inquest held by the Defendant as coroner, the Defendant made a communication in writing to the Chief Secretary for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, stating that the Rev. Mr. C. had said, in relation to the Plaintiff's evidence at the inquest, that part of it was " nothing short of perjury ; " and alleged as innuendos that the Defendant thereby imputed to the Plaintiff wilful and corrupt perjury, the giving of false evidence, and swearing falsely. The Defendant pleaded, 1st, that at an inquisition held by him as coroner, the Plaintiff was exÂÂamined as a witness, and that, at the close of the Plaintiff's evidence, Mr. C., a Roman Catholic clergyman, stated in open Court that part of the PlainÂÂtiff's testimony was "very little short of perjury ;" that the Defendant transmitted to the Chief Secretary for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a true report in writing of the inquisition, which was the alleged libel ; and that he so wrote and published the words complained of on a privileged occasion, bond fide and without malice, believing same to be true. 2ndly. That, at the time of the writing and publishing of the alleged libel, the Plaintiff was a relieving officer and the Defendant a ratepayer rated for the relief of the poor in a certain union ; that the inquest was held touching the death of one of the destitute poor who had been in receipt of outdoor relief in the union ; and that in the course of the inquest evidence was given relating to the administration of outdoor relief by the Plaintiff and other relieving officers in the union ; that the Defendant disapproved of the nature of the relief administered, as such matters appeared in the course of the inquest and evidence, and was desirous of baying a different and, in his opinion, a better mode of relief adopted, and for (1) Before FITZGERALD and Down, BB. X LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. that purpose of having a public or other proper inquiry held as to the nature and mode of administering such relief ; that the clergyman referred to in the preceding defence had made the statement therein mentioned with respect to evidence given by the Plaintiff as to the administration of outdoor relief by him as relieving officer ; and that, as such ratepayer, and being interested in the administration of such relief, the Defendant communicated the alleged defamaÂÂtory matter (being the statement made by said clergyman) to the Chief SecreÂÂtary of the Lord Lieutenant as such Secretary, and as being a Member of Parliament, on a privileged occasion, bona fide, without malice, and believing the same to be true. Reid, upon demurrer, that both pleas were bad ; that the first could not be sustained as a plea relying upon a fair report of judicial proceedings, inasmuch as the alleged libel was the communication of an unsworn defamatory stateÂÂment made by a bystander, and forming no part of the proceedings at the inquest ; and that neither defence showed that the person to whom the comÂÂmunication was made had any interest in receiving it which could render the communication privileged. DEMURRER to the fourth and. fifth paragraphs of the statement of defence. Action for libel. The statement of claim, after stating that at the time of pubÂÂlication of the alleged. libel and. of the grievances complained of, the Plaintiff was relieving officer of the Tullamore Union ; and the Defendant one of the coroners of the King's County, proceeded. as follows : Paragraph 3, " That the Defendant, in the month of February, 1879, held an inquest on the body of one Michael Fleming, and the Plaintiff was examined as a witness." Paragraph 4, " That the Defendant, after the holding of the inquest, wrote and sent to the Right Honourable James Lowther, Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a cerÂÂtain communication or document in writing, wherein the DefenÂÂdant falsely and maliciously wrote and published concerning the Plaintiff, in relation to the evidence he had given as a witness at the inquest, the following words,-' Father Callary then said this' (meaning certain evidence which the Plaintiff had given at the inquest) is nothing short of perjury,' meanÂÂing thereby that the Plaintiff had committed wilful and corrupt perjury." VOL. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. The fifth and sixth paragraphs alleged as innuendo that the alleged libel meant that the Plaintiff had given false evidence when examined at the inquest, and that the Plaintiff had sworn falsely. The portions of the statement of defence demurred to were the...