Skip to content


Leishman Vs. Holland - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad51
AppellantLeishman
RespondentHolland
Excerpt:
defamation - privilege--communication by a servant of a company to one of his subordinates as to another subordinate. - - here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; 2. agreeing with the subordinate judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them.1. this suit stands on an entirely different footing from that which has been prosecuted by the plaintiff against the company. here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; and, secondly, it has to be seen whether they were made maliciously and with knowledge on the defendant's part that they were false.2. agreeing with the subordinate judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. This suit stands on an entirely different footing from that which has been prosecuted by the plaintiff against the company. Here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; and, secondly, it has to be seen whether they were made maliciously and with knowledge on the defendant's part that they were false.

2. Agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //