Quinn v Hession

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1878
• Date: 18 November 1878
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

QUINN

and

HESSION.

Lee v. Colyer W. N. 1876, 8.

Naylor v. Farrer W. N. 1878, 187.

Nicholson v. Jackson W. N. 1876, 38.

Padwick v. Scott 2 Ch. Div. 736.

Bartholomew v. Rawlings W. N. 1876, 56.

Atwood v. Milier Ibid. 11.

Cappeleus v. Brown W. N. 1875, 231.

O'Donoghue v. HusseyUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 124.

Murphy v. HalpinUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 127.

Pleading —— Schedule, R. 22 — G. O. XXI., RR. 9, 10 — Statement of claim — Counter-claim not connected with original cause of action — Slander — Inconvenience — Irrelevancy.

VOL. IV.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. QUINN v. HESSION. Ex. Div. 878 Pleading--.Tudicature Act, sect. 27, sub-sect. 3-Schedule, B. 22-G. 0. 1 8. XXI., BR. 9, 10-Statement of claim-Counter-claim not connected with 1-0v. 16, 18. original cause of action-Slander-Inconvenience-Irrelevancy. Any claim of a Defendant against a Plaintiff exclusively, whether connected with the original subject-matter of the action or not, may be made the subject-matter of a counter-claim, unless such counter-claim cannot be conveniently tried in the pending action. In an action for slander, the Court refused to strike out, or to exclude the Defendant from availing himself of, a counter-claim seeking damages against the Plaintiff for slanderous words alleged to have been spoken and published on another occasion by the Plaintiff of the Defendant. Immaterial introductory allegations in a counter-claim struck out as emÂbarrassing. Padwick v. Scott (2 Ch. Div. 736) distinguished. MOTION on behalf of the Plaintiff, to set aside the counterÂclaim, on the ground that it could not be conveniently tried in the action, and. on the further ground, as to the 3rd and 5th paraÂgraphs, that the same were embarrassing, and that the Defendant be excluded from relying on the 4th and 5th paragraphs, on the ground that it did not appear that the cause of action therein was connected with the Plaintiff's claim. The statement of claim was as follows :- " I. The Plaintiff is a hotel-keeper in the town of Ballinrobe, in the county of Mayo ; the Defendant lives nearly opposite the Plaintiff in such town, and is a farmer. "2. The Defendant, on divers times and occasions, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the Plaintiff the words following, that is to sayÂ, Quinn ' (meaning thereby the Plaintiff) stole a watch, he' (meaning thereby the Plaintiff) ' stole M'Cormack's watch.' " 3. The Defendant, on divers other times and occasions, falsely and. maliÂciously spoke and published of the Plaintiff the words following, that is to say, I ' (meaning thereby the Defendant) will make him' (meaning thereby the Plaintiff) 'pay M'Cormack for the stolen watch' (meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had committed an indictable offence). Quinn' (meaning thereby the Plaintiff) is a bloody robber-he robbed the Dublin people and the country' (meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had committed an indictable offence). LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. " 4. The Defendant, on divers other times and occasions, falsely and maliÂciously spoke and published of the Plaintiff, in relation to his said business as. a hotel-proprietor, and the carrying on and conducting thereof by him, the words following, that is to say, Quinn' (meaning thereby the Plaintiff) keeps an improper house' (meaning that the Plaintiff had in his hotel women residÂing there for the purpose of prostitution) ; he keeps a house open all night; he robbed the Dublin people and all he could' (meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had been guilty of dishonesty in his business, as a hotel-proprietor); whereby the Plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation as a hotel-proÂprietor. " 5. The Defendant, on divers other times and occasions, falsely and maliÂciously spoke and published of the Plaintiff, in relation to his said business as a hotel-proprietor, and the carrying on and conducting thereof by him, the words following, that is to say-' Are ye' (meaning thereby persons about to lodge in the hotel of Plaintiff) going to stop at the lunatic's hotel ?' (meaning thereby that the hotel of the Plaintiff was not properly conducted). You' (meaning thereby persons about to lodge in such hotel) ' will not be short of women' (meaning thereby that there were women kept in such hotel by the Plaintiff, for tha purpose of prostitution, and to induce persons to resort to such hotel); whereby the Plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation in said business ; whereby divers persons about to resort to Plaintiff's hotel...