Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Slander Subject_3 Privilege Subject_4 Averment of Malice. Facts: A pursuer in an action of reparation for slander averred that a bank agent had in the bank office, and in presence of the bank clerks, repeatedly accused him of forgery, and set forth circumstances tending to show that the defender, in making and repeating the charges complained of, had acted without due inquiry, rashly, and without taking any precaution to secure secrecy.
Held (1) that the pursuer's record disclosed no case of privilege, and (2) that should a case of privilege emerge at the trial malice had been sufficiently averred.
In January 1893 A. C. M. Ingram, analytical chemist, Paisley, brought an action of reparation for slander against Robert Russell, agent for the Clydesdale Bank there, concluding for £1000.
On the morning of Monday, 19th December 1892, the defender came into the Page: 700 ↓
The statements of the defender to the effect that the bills did not contain Page: 701 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.