In an action of damages by a midwife against a medical practitioner the jury returned a verdict for the pursuer on the first and fourth issues, which were in these terms (1) ‘Whether on 15th October 1891 . . the defender falsely and calumniously stated to Stephen Moore that the pursuer had poisoned his wife Mrs Agnes Moore’ . . (4) ‘Whether on 20th October 1891 . . the defender falsely, calumniously, and maliciously, and without probable cause, stated to Archibald Mackenzie, detective-officer, that Mrs Moore, wife of Stephen Moore, had been poisoned by a drug given to her by the pursuer which had caused her death.’ . . The Judge directed the jury that the statements contained in the first issue were privileged, and that malice must be proved, and no objection was made by the pursuer.
The only evidence of malice adduced by the pursuer as affecting either the first or the fourth issue was the evidence of Mackenzie, who proved that the statements made to him were not volunteered by the defender, but were used in the course of the defender’s replies to Mackenzie’s inquiries made officially by him.
Held: that the verdict was unsupported by evidence, and a new trial granted.
Observations by Lord Trayner as to the limits within which the existence of malice at an earlier date may be inferred from proof of malice at a later date.
Judges:
Lord Trayner
Citations:
[1893] SLR 30 – 335
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
See Also – Reid v Coyle SCS 12-May-1892
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.613420