Stewart v. Hannah [1905] ScotLR 43_74 (17 November 1905)

The innuendo was admissible, the occasion was privileged, and the pursuer's averments were sufficient to infer malice, allowing the issue to proceed with malice inserted.

Citation: [1905] ScotLR 43_74
Parties: Pursuer: James G. Stewart; Defender: Alexander Hannah
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 17 November 1905
Procedural Posture: Reparation (slander) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome: issue allowed with malice inserted; second issue disallowed
Legal Topics: Slander, Privilege, Malice, Innuendo, Relevancy

Tort Defamation Slander Privilege Malice Innuendo Relevancy

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

James G. Stewart

Pursuer

Alexander Hannah

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (slander) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether the statements in the letter could bear the innuendo of dishonest appropriation
2 Whether the occasion was privileged
3 Whether sufficient averments of facts and circumstances inferring malice were made

Ratio Decidendi

The innuendo was admissible, the occasion was privileged, and the pursuer's averments were sufficient to infer malice, allowing the issue to proceed with malice inserted.

Court Disposition

issue allowed with malice inserted; second issue disallowed

Orders

first issue approved with malice inserted
second issue disallowed