M'Inerney v The "Clareman" Printing and Publishing Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 December 1903
• Date: 15 January 1903
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

M'INERNEY

and

THE "CLAREMAN" PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.

K. B. Div.

Appeal.

Libel — Newspaper publication — Matter of public interest —— Verdict of "No libel" found by jury — New trial — Power of Court to grant.

Aitken v. M'MechanELR [1895] A. C. 310.

Australian Newspaper Co. v. BennettELR [1894] A. C. 284.

Boome v. GosdenENR 1 C. B. 731.

Broome v. GosdenENR 1 C. B. 731.

Brown v. The Commissioners of Railways 13 A. C. 133.

Burgess v. BracherENR [1724] 8 Mod. 238.

Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty 7 A. C. 741.

Commissioners for Railways v. Brown 13 A. C. 133.

Coulson v. CoulsonUNK 3 T. L. R. 846.

Council of Brisbane v. MartinELR [1894] A. C. 249.

Fisher v. RooneyIR [1901] 2 I. R. 465.

Fisher v. The Nation NewspaperIR [1901] 2 I. R. at p. 470.

Goldstein v. FossENR 6 B. & C. 154.

Grant v. YatesUNK 2 T. L. R. 368.

Hakewell v. IngramUNK 2 C. L. R. 1397.

Hearne v. StowellENR 12 Ad. & E. 719.

Henwood v. HarrisonELR L. R. 7 C P. 606.

Jones v. SpencerUNK 14 T. L. R. 41.

King v. CuthellST1 27 State Trials, at p. 675.

Levi v. MilneENR 4 Bing. 195.

Liverpool Household Stores Associaton v. SmithELR 37 Ch. D. 170.

Mawe v. PigottUNKIR I. R. 4 C. L 54.

Mawe v. PigottUNKIR I. R. 4 C. L. 54.

Metropolitan Railway Company v. WrightELR 17 Q. B. D. 737.

Monson v. Tussauds, LimitedELR [1894] 1 Q. B. at p.693.

O'Brien v. Lord SalisburyUNK 6 T. L. R. 137.

O'Brien v. SalisburyUNK 6 T. L. R. 137.

O'Brien v. The Marquis of SalisburyUNK 6 T. L. R. at p. 137.

Odger v. MortimerUNK 28 L. T. (N. S.) 472.

Parmiter v. CouplandENR 6 M. & W. 105.

Praed v. GrahamELR 27 Q. B. D. 53.

Quinlane v. MurnaneUNK 18 L. R. Ir. 53.

Saxby v. EasterbrookELR 3 C. P. D. 339, at p. 342.

Solomon v. BittonELR 8 Q. B. D. 176.

The Australian Newspaper Company v. BennettELR [1894] A. C. 284.

Walter v. Beaver, Naden v. MicockeENR [1684] 3 Lev. 166.

Webster v. Friedeberg 11 A. C. 152.

Webster v. FriedebergELR 17 Q. B. D. 736.

Wright v. The Metropolitan Railway Co. 11 A. C. 152.

VoL. II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 347 M'INERNEY v. THE " CLAREMAN " PRINTING AND K. B. Div. PUBLISHING CO. (1). 1902. Nov. 14, 18, Libel—Newspaper publication—Matter of public interest—Newspaper Label 19. Dec. 1. Act—Verdict of "No libel" found by jury—New trial—Power of Court — to grant. 1902. The jurisdiction and duty of the Court in dealing with the finding of a jury Dec. 18, 19, upon the question of " libel or no libel" considered : they are the same in kind 1903. and in principle as upon any ordinary issue of fact upon which the jury is the Jan. 15. final tribunal : the difference, if any, is only of degree. The plaintiff, an auctioneer and farmer at E. in the county of Clare, took a farm, near R, which had been surrendered by tenants named F., who were not willing to give the rent which the plaintiff agreed to pay. T. F., a brother of the former tenants, brought the matter before the United Irish League, and the matter was discussed at several meetings. Between 3rd October, 1901, and 25th January, 1902, several publications appeared in the defendants' paper about the matter. The first was a letter written by T. F. on the 3rd October, 1901, which he concluded by saying " that he would continue to denounce the grabber until justice was done to his victims." The last was a report, stating that shots had been fired at houses of parties who had purchased goods from an E. merchant who had " become very notorious." The intervening publicaÂtions complained of consisted of reports of resolutions passed at meetings of the League, at which plaintiff was described as a grabber, and his conduct was denounced. After the first three meetings the plaintiff appeared before two meetings of the League, to explain the circumstances under which he took the farm, at the first of which nothing was done, and at the second there was an investigation by the committee, at which he was not present. • He stated that he would appeal to the executive tribunal of the United Irish League, and he wrote a letter, stating his grounds of defence to the charge of landgrabbing, which the defendants published in their paper. The plaintiff's business was ruined in consequence of these publications. The plaintiff did not pursue his appeal to the executive of the United Irish League, but brought the present action, the libels complained of being the letters written to, and the reports of meetings published in, the defendants' paper. The defendants pleaded no libel, fair comment, and a special defence under the Newspaper Libel Act, that the resolutions of the League branches were published in the ordinary course (1) In the King's Bench Division, before KENNY, BARTON', and WEIGHT, JJ. 2 C2 348 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. K. B. Div. of business, and were fair reports of proceedings of public meetings concerning 1902, matters of public interest. At the trial the Judge left the question of libel, or IPINERNEY no libel, to the jury, and they found that the publications were not libels. v. Counsel for the plaintiff asked for a direction on the special defences, but the IAN RDTTING & Judge , to avoid the necessity of a second trial, left the issues of fact on the p Pun'slum- special defences to the jury, who found that the matters commented on and Co. published were matters of public interest, and they likewise found the other issues in favour of the defendants : Held (affirming the decision of the King's Bench Division), that the verdict should be set aside; that the publications did not relate to matters of public interest, but to the private transactions of two individuals; that a verdict on the special defences ought to have been directed for the plaintiff ; that the plaintiff was not estopped by his conduct from showing that the transaction was not a matter of public interest, and that there ought to be a new trial, as the issue of libel or no libel should have been decided independently of the other issues, and the jury might not have clearly apprehended the real issues to be tried. THE plaintiff was an auctioneer and shopkeeper at EnnisÂtymon, in the county of Clare, and he also carried on the business of a farmer in the said county. A farm of 300 acres near EnnisÂtymon fell vacant in September, 1900 ; the tenants were John and. Margaret Flanagan, and the agent stated they held it in equal shares. The rent was £65 per annum, and they owed £180 arrears of rent. They complained that the rent was too high, and offered £45 a-year for it ; the plaintiff offered £50 a-year, and was accepted. The farm was surrendered. in September, 1900. There were several branches of the United Irish League in the county of Clare, at Corofin, Inagh, and Kilshanny—places a few miles from Ennistymon ; and the defendants were the proprietors and publishers of a newspaper which circulated largely in Clare and the adjoining counties. A meeting of the United Irish League was held at Ennistymon on the 29th September, 1901, when at the end of the meeting Timothy Flanagan, a brother of the tenants, endeavoured to address the meeting on the subject of the plaintiff taking the farm. The Rev. Mr. Fitzgerald, who was in the chair, refused to permit him; and on the 5th October, 1901, the following letter appeared in the Clareman—being the first libel complained of :— Vol" II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 349 "THE ENNISTYMON MEETING. K. B. Div. " To the Editor of the Clareman. 1902. M 'INERNEY " GLENQUIN HousE, KILNABOY, v. "3rd October, 1901, CLUBMAN PRINTING & "DEAR Srn,—I think it only fair to myself, and to all concerned, to PUBLISHING explain my position as regards the incident which occurred at the termination Co. of Sunday's meeting at Ennistymon. I was under the impression, and exÂpected up to the last moment, that the glaring case of landgrabbing to which I referred would be alluded to by some of the speakers. Seeing that no mention was made of it, I thought it my duty to make the remark I did. In the excitement of the moment I quite overlooked the fact that I should, in the first instance, have obtained the Rev. Chairman's consent to speak, and I apologise for the unintentional omission. At the same time I repeat that I only considered it my duty to do as I did, and that I will continue to denounce the grabber until justice is done to his victims. " Yours faithfully, " TIMOTHY FLANAGAN, " Chairman Corofin D. C." A meeting of the United Irish League was held at Corofin on the 27th October, 1901, and in the Clareman of the 2nd November the second libel appeared, being a report of what took place at that meeting :— "It was unanimously resolved that the grabbing of Messrs. Flanagans' farm by M'Inerney, auctioneer, Ennistymon, be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and that intimation of same be sent to the Ennistymon Branch of the League, Messrs. Flanagan being members of this branch." The third libel consisted of a report in the Clareman of the 16th November, 1900 :— "A most enthusiastic and representative meeting of the Ennistymon Branch, at which a letter from the Corofin Branch, re the Flanagan–M'Inerney ease, was read to the effect that the case has again to be considered before a special meeting of the branch, to be held on the 17th November, when full particulars would be sent to the Ennistymon Branch." The fourth libel complained of consisted of a report in the Clareman, published on the 23rd November, 1901, of a meeting of the Corofin Branch on the 17th November, 1901, to the followÂing effect :— 350 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. K. B. Div. "Cm= BRANCH.—There was an enormous attendance at the meeting 1902. of this branch, held on yesterday, l'ith inst., and the amount of business laid M'INERNEY before it showed the root the League in this district had taken, and the con& v. dente evinced. Mr. T. Flanagan, J.P. and C.C., presided, and the following CLAREMAN members of the committee, including treasurer and secretary, were...