From the Daily Express, 2 February 1889:
“THE ACTION BY A SOLICITOR FOR SLANDER
In the Exchequer Division yesterday, before the Lord Chief Baron and Mr Baron Dowse, the case of Hugh Thomas Sayers, solicitor, v Edward Ussher Quinn, JP, of Shankill, County Waterford, was again before the court. The plaintiff instituted the proceedings to recover damages, laid at £1000, for alleged slander. The defendant applied under the 6th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, that unless the plaintiff gave security for costs the action should be remitted for trial to the County Court Judge of Tipperary within which the defendant (it was stated) resided.
Mr Moloney (instructed by Mr Carruthers) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Matheson (instructed by Mr St George) appeared for the defendant.
Mr Moloney referred the court to a number of authorities in support of his preliminary objection to the motion. In one case cited from the Irish law reports, counsel stated, in reply to the court, that the report of the case was not signed by any one.
The Lord Chief Baron said he was not prepared to act on any report of the case except it was signed by a barrister as the person reporting.
Mr Baron Dowse – It would be a great advantage if all the Irish Law Reports were thrown into the Liffey (laughter).
The Lord Chief Baron stated that where the reports were given at length in the Irish Law Reports they were satisfactory.
Mr Baron Dowse – But sometimes a judge revises his judgment, and he then has an opportunity of leaving out anything he does not like (laughter).
After further discussion, the Lord Chief Baron said the court would reserve their decision on the preliminary objection… He (the Lord Chief Baron) would like to hear what the slander complained of was.
Mr Moloney said that, according to his client’s affidavit, the plaintiff was a solicitor practising in Cashel, and that on the 5th December 1888, he attended the petty Sessions there to defend a summons issued by Mary Anne Quinn against a Mrs Maher. The case was adjourned until the 19th of December, when he again attended. The defendant, who was present as agent for Mrs Quinn, pointing at the plaintiff, said ‘the lease was here last day, and I saw that gentleman taken it.’
Plaintiff replied that he never saw the lease, and the defendant again said ‘I am not in the habit of making fictitious statements. I emphatically say you took it and put it in your papers.’ The lease was afterwards found in one of the court books, where it had been mislaid by the defendant himself.
The Lord Chief Baron said all this had happened in a petty sessions court, which would make it privileged except a jury found there was malice.
Mr Moloney – The charge, as we allege, was one of larceny, and it is made against a solicitor.
Mr Baron Dowse – The less said about a case pending the better, and this one may yet come before us on appeal. But all I can say is the plaintiff was badly off for an action (laughter).”
Baron Dowse’s comments about the Law Reports may have been designed to gently tease Lord Chief Justice Morris, who had form with the Irish Law Reports – see clippings below from the Irish Times, 15 November 1883 and the Dublin Daily Express, 24 November 1883. His repeated criticisms of the Reports preference for ‘little venue motions’ over important Land Act cases may have been a little unjust given their self-description as particularly relating to points of practice.
But no periodical can expect to please all its subscribers!
Leave a Reply