M'Vicar v. Barbour [1916] ScotLR 381 (24 February 1916)

M'Vicar v. Barbour [1916] ScotLR 381 (24 February 1916)

The evidence of one witness to each of two separate occasions of slander, where the words used bear the same innuendoed meaning, is sufficient in law to support a jury verdict for slander. The mutual corroboration principle applies even if the words differ, provided the meaning is the same, and regardless of whether other witnesses could have been called or whether innuendo is required.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 381
Parties
Pursuer: Juliet Stewart M'Vicar; Defender: John Barbour
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 February 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for New Trial After Jury Verdict
Outcome
rule for new trial discharged; jury verdict for pursuer stands
Legal Topics
Slander, Defamation, Corroboration, Innuendo, Proof Requirements
Tort Evidence Slander Defamation Corroboration Innuendo Proof Requirements

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliet Stewart M'Vicar

Pursuer

John Barbour

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion for New Trial After Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of one witness to each of two separate slanderous utterances, with the same innuendo, is sufficient in law to support a jury verdict for slander.
  2. 2 Whether corroboration by iteration applies where the words used on each occasion are different but bear the same innuendoed meaning.
  3. 3 Whether the existence of other possible witnesses or the need for innuendo affects the sufficiency of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of one witness to each of two separate occasions of slander, where the words used bear the same innuendoed meaning, is sufficient in law to support a jury verdict for slander. The mutual corroboration principle applies even if the words differ, provided the meaning is the same, and regardless of whether other witnesses could have been called or whether innuendo is required.

Court Disposition

rule for new trial discharged; jury verdict for pursuer stands

Orders

  • Rule for new trial discharged
  • Jury verdict for pursuer on first and third issues affirmed