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 Inuendo Subject_4 Issue. Facts: Action on slander dismissed as irrelevant, the statement put in issue not being in itself slanderous, and there being no inuendo on record.
The Lord Ordinary ( Barcaple ) reported the case on issues, stating his opinion that the statement put in issue—viz., that the pursuer failed to account for a part of the oats stored with him, and that the defender would force him to account before the Sheriff—was not defamatory in the legal sense of the term.
The Lord President said that the case was one of the clearest he had ever seen. There was no possible ground for holding that the statement made by the defender was slanderous in itself. It might, perhaps, have been made so by inuendo, but there was no inuendo on record, and the action must therefore be dismissed.
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.