M'Laughlan v. Orr, Pollock, & Co.

Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Slander Subject_3 Verbal Injury Subject_4 Ridicule — Issue. Facts: In an action against a newspaper proprietor, the pursuer alleged that the defender had published a series of articles intended to hold him up to public ridicule, contempt, and scorn. The Court ( rev . decision of Lord Kincairney) dismissed the action on the ground that the articles complained of did not impute moral depravity to the pursuer, and that it was not actionable to hold a person up to ridicule for his public conduct.

Observed that it is only where private character is attacked, or where the criticism of public conduct is combined with the suggestion of base or indirect motives, that redress can be claimed on the ground of injury to reputation.

Observations on the form of issue to be allowed, where injury to reputation is relevantly averred, but no specific misrepresentation is founded on.

Upon 14th July 1894 the Lord Ordinary ( Kincairney ) approved of the following issue:—“Whether the said paragraphs, articles, and letter, or any parts thereof, are of and concerning the pursuer, and were published in pursuance of an intention to expose, and did calumniously and injuriously expose the pursuer to public ridicule and contempt, to his loss and damage. Damages laid at £500.”

“ Opinion .—I am of opinion that the pursuer is entitled to an issue, and as in my view the case will go before a jury, it is neither necessary nor desirable that I should express a detailed opinion.