William Peddie, James Kerr, and George La Grue v Samuel Kyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1900
• Date: 01 January 1900
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

William Peddie, James Kere, and George La Grue

and

Samuel Kyle (1).

Q. B. Div.

Appeal.

(1898. No. 18,266.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1900.

Practice — Joinder of plaintiffs — Libel — Separate causes of action — Motion to stay further proceedings — Order XVI., Rule 1.

Where a libel is published in the same words and in the same document of different persons, they cannot be joined as plaintiffs in one action of libel.

Smurthwaite v. Hannay ([1894] A. C. 494) followed; Booth v. Briscoe (2 Q. B. D. 496) considered and explained.

Motion on behalf of the defendant that all further proceedings be stayed, and the action dismissed, on the ground that the plaintiffs should have brought separate actions in respect of their respective claims, and that the present action is an abuse of the process of the Court.

The defendant, as the honorary secretary of the Masters' Association of printers in Dublin, in the month of November, 1898, issued a notice to the members of the association announcing that the employees of one of the members had gone out on strike, and giving the names of the men who had gone on strike. Among these names were the names of the three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that they had not gone out on strike, but that for reasons

personal to themselves they had at that date left their employment. The three plaintiffs joined in one action of libel. Subsequently to the issue of the writ the plaintiff Peddie died, and the action was, as to him, discontinued. The present motion was then instituted.

Campbell, Q. C., and Meredith, for the defendant:—

These plaintiffs cannot join in one action. Different considerations apply to each of them. The measure of damages in each case would be different. As regards La Grue we wish to plead privilege. As regards Kerr it is a mere question of damages, and we wish to move to remit. Order XVI., Rule 1, deals with parties merely and not causes of action. Here the causes of action are separate. [They cited Smurthwaite v. Hannay (1)].

Healy, Q.C. (O'Shaughnessy, Q.C., with him), for the surviving plaintiffs:—

Two parties having a joint and common cause for complaint can join in one action. There is no difficulty as to pleading or as to the jury finding a verdict. Here you have as plaintiffs workmen belonging to the same...