Christie v. Craik [1900] ScotLR 37_285 (12 January 1900)

Christie v. Craik [1900] ScotLR 37_285 (12 January 1900)

The pursuer was not entitled to insist on the insertion of 'by intimidation' in the counter-issue because the innuendo, which contained the sting of the issue, did not reference intimidation. The counter-issue need only reflect the substance of the charge as explained in the innuendo.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_285
Parties
Pursuer: James Christie; Defender: Robert Craik
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 January 1900
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Reclaiming Note Against Interlocutor Adjusting Issues and Counter Issues
Outcome
Reclaiming note and motion to vary counter-issue refused; interlocutor adhered to; defender awarded expenses since the date of the interlocutor reclaimed against.
Legal Topics
Slander, Pleadings, Issues and Counter Issues, Innuendo, Corrupt Practices
Defamation Civil Procedure Slander Pleadings Issues and Counter Issues Innuendo Corrupt Practices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Christie

Pursuer

Robert Craik

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Reclaiming Note Against Interlocutor Adjusting Issues and Counter Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counter-issue must include the allegation of 'intimidation' to meet the pursuer's issue in a slander action where the innuendo does not reference intimidation.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer was not entitled to insist on the insertion of 'by intimidation' in the counter-issue because the innuendo, which contained the sting of the issue, did not reference intimidation. The counter-issue need only reflect the substance of the charge as explained in the innuendo.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note and motion to vary counter-issue refused; interlocutor adhered to; defender awarded expenses since the date of the interlocutor reclaimed against.

Orders

  • Adhere to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 23rd June 1899.
  • Refuse the reclaiming-note and the motion to vary counter-issue.