Grant v. Chisholm [1914] ScotLR 202 (10 January 1914)

Grant v. Chisholm [1914] ScotLR 202 (10 January 1914)

The words complained of are reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the pursuer, and it is for the jury to determine their meaning and effect; therefore, the issue should be allowed to go to trial.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 202
Parties
Pursuer: John Chisholm; Defender: James Grant
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 January 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander) / Interlocutory (allowance of Issue for Jury Trial)
Outcome
Issue allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Slander, Innuendo, Malice, Qualification for Office
Tort Defamation Slander Innuendo Malice Qualification for Office

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Chisholm

Pursuer

James Grant

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander) / Interlocutory (allowance of Issue for Jury Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words spoken by the defender were capable of bearing the innuendo alleged by the pursuer and thus actionable as slander.
  2. 2 Whether the issue as framed should be allowed to go to the jury.

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the pursuer, and it is for the jury to determine their meaning and effect; therefore, the issue should be allowed to go to trial.

Court Disposition

Issue allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • The issue as framed by the pursuer is allowed to go to the jury.