BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Jardine v Creech, &c. [1776] Mor 3438 (22 June 1776)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Mor0803438-009.html Cite as:
[1776] Mor 3438
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Jardine schoolmaster at Bathgate, prosecuted Messrs Creech, Elliot, and others, as publishers of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, for a defamatory paragraph inserted in their magazine for March 1774, bearing, “That a letter from Bathgate, signed J— D—NE, against a ball lately held at Whitburn, is received; but is totally void of merit. It exhibits alternate strokes of superstition and blasphemy. The author, at the same time, possesses not any talent for composition. He writes with a total contempt of all the rules of grammar. It gives us pain to learn, from the letter which accompanied this reprehensible and unworthy essay, that it is the production of a schoolmaster, and that it is approved of by a popular clergyman. At any rate, it would be improper to publish a paper, tending to foment dissention among neighbours, and to wound the character of respectable persons of both sexes.” The pursuer denied that he had ever sent such a letter or composition, or knew any thing about it; but urged, that being pointed out by so many marks or characters, which could apply to nobody but himself, his character and reputation had deeply suffered, and of course, his professional emoluments were either actually impaired or endangered. The defenders urged, That they had no intention to injure the pursuer, whom they did not know; they only stigmatized the writer of an unworthy and blameable composition: There was nothing in the paragraph that pointed out this pursuer. The letters might have applied to John Donne or James Downe, but could not apply to the pursuer; for commoners and private men never sign by their sirnames alone. Besides, the interest of literature requires that there should be a freedom of criticism, and their publication being a review, they plead the privilege of all their brethren.—The Lords found damages and expenses due, and modified the same to fifty guineas.
