9911796707
TMI Blog1945 (3) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he would not repeat the slanders. Just as it was thought, perhaps wrongly, that he had repeated the first one, now it seems that he certainly did utter some slanders. The words that the learned Judge finds that he used are these: "I advise you" that is, Mr. Levene, to whom he was speaking "to disassociate yourself from Mr. Leonard Jackson and the rest of them. When Mr. Jackson has a few drinks he talks a good deal and says how he can get supplies of food or otherwise for the restaurant. The restaurant is being watched. It is better to lose your money that way than have to pay a fine of 500. Get out of the Bagatelle Restaurant." The second allegation is that, after a conversation about some experiences with the Customs and Excise officials, which had nothing to do with the Bagatelle Restaurant, he said: "I am in a very strong position with the Ministry of Food. The restaurant is being watched. My advice is, get out. and stop supplying for three or four months. Jackson is no good; his word means nothing to him. Get out of the Bagatelle." In those circumstances, the Judge having found that those words were used, it seems to me that it is impossible to ask this Court to say eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as much as a private individual, because undoubtedly it could have an action for any defamation if it could prove damage I will not say that, because I think the same limitation and the same principles must apply to slander as to libel in respect of a limited company, that is to say, the slander must relate to the company's business. If it does, I see no principle upon which any distinction can be drawn between written defamation and oral defamation. Therefore, it seems to me that an action lies at the suit of a company. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to discuss the question as to whether or not the company could maintain an action on the ground that it has been charged with a criminal offence. Mr. Jackson obviously could, if the words bear that meaning, as I think they do, but I do not propose to discuss it in the case of the company, because it is not necessary. These two matters seem to me as clear as daylight, and I think, therefore, that the judgment so far was perfectly right. But now there is raised another point. There was no plea of justification in this case. In substance what was pleaded was that the words were not defamatory and were not actionable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in libel actions is, I think, established, and also the law as to the right to give evidence in mitigation in actions of defamation is also clear-Whether the law is wholly satisfactory it is not for me to say; we have to take the law as we find it, and certainly for a great many years it appears that the law has been this. You can cross-examine a plaintiff in a libel or slander action in exactly the same way that you can cross-examine a plaintiff in any other action; therefore, if you want to put questions to him, including questions as to whether he has been convicted of offences, for the purpose of destroying his credit, you can do so-If a plaintiff goes into the witness-box and poses, for instance, as a man of unblemished reputation, and not only a man of unblemished reputation but a man who ought to be believed, you can put to him any questions you like to show that he is in fact a rascal whom the Court or the jury ought not to believe that is to say, to use a common expression, you can cross-examine to credit. But you are bound by his answers, and if he denies some matter you cannot call evidence to contradict it. It has always been said that you cannot use the fact that you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut it, and I think he was justified in so feeling. I think the learned Judge gave a right decision. He did not give large damages in this case. Considering the nature of the libel, he might have given very heavy damages, but he did not. I think, therefore, that there is no fault to find with his judgment, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. The learned Judge gave the plaintiff Jackson 2 and the plaintiff company 4 in respect of breaches of the undertaking to which I have referred, which had been given when it was alleged that there had been previous slanders. In my judgment, that was wrong, because this action was not brought for breach of contract and there is no allegation of breach of contract. However, we dismiss the appeal, and we direct that the order be amended by substituting 50 in each case for 52 and 54. I do not know how it came to be done below, but there seems to have been no protest about it, as the matter was not raised. It is quite clear that neither on the writ nor in the statement of claim is there any allegation that the action was brought for breach of contract. I think the learned Judge acted perfectly properly in awarding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
