Murphy v Halpin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 January 1874
• Date: 23 January 1874
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

Before FITZGERALD, DEASY, and DOWSE, BB.

MURPHY

and

HALPIN.

O'Donoghue v. HuseyUNKIR I. R. 5 C. L. 124.

Laughton v. The Bishop of Sodor and ManELR L. R. 5 P. C. 495.

Koenig v. RitchieENR 3 F. & F. 413.

Hemmings v. GassonENR E. B. & E. 346.

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

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

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

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

Tarpley v. Blabey 2 Bing. N. S. 437.

Pleading Libel Privileged Communication Appeal to the public.

VOL. VIII.] COMMON LAW SERIES. deration-an I. 0. U., to be given by the Defendant for the rent due by his father Michael ; and the consent, at all events, contemÂÂplated the execution of a further agreement between Lord Leitrim and the Defendant; and Lord Leitrim undertook not to execute the decree issued to him. This last term seems to me conclusive that the intention of the parties was not to create a present tenancy in the Defendant. It seems to me explicable only on the supposition that the possession should continue in such plight as would entitle Lord Leitrim to execute the decree but for such undertaking, that is to say, in Michael Geelan, subject to the decree, until the new tenancy was completed by the execution of the agreement mentioned in it, and when, of course, the undertaking would have become unnecessary. I think the learned Judge was right in treating the agreement for a tenancy as executory, and this view of its construction appears to me to dispose of the case both of tenancy from year. to year and tenancy at will. I think the cause shown ought to be allowed, and that the verdict for the Plaintiff ought to stand. 127 Exchequer. 1873. EARL OF LEITRIM V. GEELAN. Conditional order discharged. Attorney for the Plaintiff: G. DP Gusty. Attorney for the Defendant : T. O'Shaughnessy. MURPHY v. HALPIN (1). Exchequer. 1874. Pleading-Libel-Privileged Communication-Appeal to the public. Jan. 17, 23. In an action for writing to the editor of a public newspaper a letter imputÂÂing to the Plaintiff untruthfulness, inability to discharge his debts, and conÂÂduct otherwise discreditable to his position as a poor law guardian, the DefendÂÂant pleaded that, being medical officer of a dispensary in the Poor Law Union of which the Plaintiff was a guardian, and having, in pursuance of his official duties, caused the seizure of unsound meat and the prosecution of a person by whom it had been exposed for sale, he incurred costs in defending an action brought against him for having instituted the prosecution, and that, at a meetÂÂing of the board of guardians, subsequently held, the Plaintiff; knowing that (1) Before FITZGERALD, DEASY, and DowsE, BB. THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. E. the proceedings would be reported, and for the purpose of having his statements published, in a newspaper circulating in the district, stated that the Defendant had acted wrongly and improperly' with reference to the seizure of the meat, and in the prosecution, and should have compromised the action which followed, and that his costs therein ought not to be paid by the guardians ; that these statements of the Plaintiff were afterwards published in the newspaper, and that, in order to prevent credit being given thereto by the public, and in self-defence, the Defendant wrote to the editor of the newspaper the alleged libel, bond fide believing the same to be true, and without malice : Held, on demurrer, that the plea failed to show that the alleged libel was a privileged communication. 07 Donoghue v. Hussey, I. R. 5 C. L. 124, commented on and distinguished. DEMURRER to defence. Action for libel. The introductory averments of the summons and plaint stated that the Plaintiff was a guardian of the poor of the Rathdrum Union, and that the alleged libel was contained in a letter written by the Defendant to the Editor of " The Wicklow News-letter"-a newspaper circulating in the county of Wicklow. The alleged libel was stated in the first count as follows : " I have often heard it said, that there is nothing like leather.' So Mr. Michael Murphy, P. L. G. (meaning the Plaintiff), thinks, as he appears to make his conscience quite as tough and as elastic ; for, in your last issue, he is reported to have said that it was his humble opinion that the guardians (meaning the guardians of the Rathdrum Union) had no right to pay a shilling of it (meaning certain costs incurred by the Defendant), for the reason that Dr. Halpin (meaning the Defendant) might have settled the whole affair for 3. I shall thank Mr. Murphy to say where or from whom he derived this little bit of information. At present I can do *ling more than denounce his statement as untrue, unÂÂfounded, and, in my opinion, quite in keeping with the man. I ask this champion guardian (meaning the Plaintiff) is it the first time he objected to pay pounds or shillings ? When Mr. Murphy elects to run before the public he must abide by public usage. If he recollects, when I asked him to vote for the increase in the medical officers' salaries, his reply was, Now, doctor, you know I would like to serve you, but I must vote in the board-room as I am told by the person who put me into it.' This is the Arklow guardian who now has the audacity to offer an opinion VOL. VIII.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 129 (borrowed) so soon after declaring he was not allowed to have the custody of his own thoughts or acts. Again, he says, Dr. Halpin (meaning the Defendant) should have compromised his opinion and character. I beg to assure him he little knows Dr. Halpin's principles if he thinks him capable of such conduct. In fact, if one farthing settled the whole affair it should never have been paid, for I knew too well the unsoundness of the beef. , Mr. Murphy further on says, it would be a bad precedent for the guardians to encourage Dr. Halpin in such proceedings. As Mr. Murphy is not entitled to a fee for his opinion, I shall treat him in the like manner by not thanking him, but merely refer him to the observations of the chairman (meaning the chairman of the board of guardians) in the latter part of the proceedings, and remark that, despite his borrowed opinion, and the promptings of his henchman, he (Dr. Halpin) shall continue to watch over the sanitary state of the Arklow meat market, and has no fear but that the honourable and humane portion of the guardians will see that all necessary legal expenses will be forthcoming, and to these guardians and gentlemen I now publicly beg to offer...