Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 38


     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:  I have not got it marked.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  About five lines into his judgment:  "The
     5        case then simply comes to this, that the pursuer used a
     6        strong expression for conveying his opinion that the bread
     7        was unwholesome.  He is not said to have had any improper
     8        motive for saying that.  He was not a rival in trade; on
     9        the contrary, he is alleged to have said that his own
    10        business would be promoted by the sale of unwholesome
    11        bread".
    12
    13   MS. STEEL:   Yes, that is ------
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  "It would be a strong thing to say that an
    16        action of damages would lie for words like these".  Is that
    17        the bit you had in mind?
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, it is.  Yes, thank you.  That just
    20        really makes the point that the fact that the leaflet says
    21        that McDonald's food is unhealthy cannot be said to be
    22        defamatory, and that the surgeon has actually gone so far
    23        as saying that people are going to become ill as a result
    24        of eating this bread, or might become ill as a result of
    25        eating this bread, which was felt would not be defamatory;
    26        that looking to what is reasonable freedom of speech on
    27        such matters it would be a strong thing to say that an
    28        action of damages would lie for words like these.
    29        Therefore, people should be entitled to say if they
    30        consider that food products cause people to become ill, and
    31        that that is not defamatory.
    32
    33        Obviously, it is our case that the leaflet is talking about
    34        diet in any event, but looking at just the Plaintiffs'
    35        meaning, which is that the leaflet says that their food
    36        causes people to become ill with cancer and heart disease,
    37        that is a parallel to what is said here, that it is found
    38        to be not defamatory.
    39
    40        If I just say actually that where that is actually referred
    41        to in the original introduction about what it says, because
    42        it is put slightly stronger there, on page 564, about
    43        two-thirds of the way down, it says:  "... the defender, on
    44        or about the said 3rd October 1867", etcetera, "did say
    45        that, in the defender's opinion, the bread baked by the
    46        pursuer was made of inferior flour, and probably was
    47        carelessly manufactured; that it would be very much in
    48        favour of defender's business as a surgeon if the pursuer
    49        were to be allowed to continue making such bread unchecked
    50         - meaning thereby that the pursuer's customers would 
    51        contract disease by consuming the bread baked by the 
    52        pursuer".  I do not know whether that did explain it any 
    53        better than Lord Deas.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is part of the pleading of the pursuer,
    56        the way they were putting their case, he was putting his
    57        case.
    58
    59   MS. STEEL:   Right, but it was just that that was found to be
    60        not defamatory.  I think Mr. Morris wants -----

Prev Next Index