The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-25 00:00:00

A HIGHLAND SLANDER.

At the Jury Court, Edinburgh, on Monday,
before the Lord President, a case was tried in which
Mr. K. W. S. Mackenzie, of Seaforth, Ross-shire,
was pursuer, and Mr. H. Dundas Drummond, 12,
Devonshire-place, Portland-place, London, was de-
fender. The case was presented on four issues—
namely, Ist, Whether, on the 22d of October last,
within the railway station at Dingwall, the defen-
der, in the hearing of Mr. Cash, Adjutant, Ross-
shire Rifle Volunteers, and Dr. M'Lean, Dingwall,
said of the pursuer, " You are a-- liar ;" 2d,
Whether defender, on same occasion, said of the
pursuer that he was "A lying thief ;" 3d,
Whether he had said the pursuer was a " scoun-
drel ;" and 4th, Whether defender had said of pur-
suer, " Your word is not worth a —, and it is a
wonder they don't turn such a beggar out of the
country." Damages were laid at £l,OOO. The pur-
suer deposed he was at Dingwall railway station with
his wife aad family on the 22d October. He saw Mr.
Drummond there, whom he knew slightly. lie ad-
dressed him, saying, " How are you?" and defen-
dant replied, " I am surprised you should speak to
me. You are a liar ; you tell one story in Lon-
don and another in the north." Witness asked him
what he meant by such language, when, taking a
paper out of his pocket, defendant said, " You are a

lying thiefLa great scoundrel—a blackguard;"
adding that he was a disgrace to the country, and he
wondered they allowed such a beggar to remain in

it, and that his word was not worth a - in Lon-
don. Severatother witnesses were called to prove
the use of these abusive appellations The defen-
dant, on being placed in the box;,Stated be had, on
one occasion, taken a lease of Inchroe shootings, on
Seaforth's estate, but could find no grouse in them.

He had mentioned this to Mr. Mackenzie, who said
that he (defendant) must be mad, for it was a fish-
ing place and not a shooting place at all, and that
be let the place to an innkeeper named Finlayson
(who had sublet it to Mr. Drummond) for £5O a
year for the fishings, giving him the shootings for
nothing. In an action defendant had raised against
Finlayson pursuer gave evidence to quite an oppo-
site effect. Accordingly when pursuer accosted him
on one occasion in 1865, saying " How are you ?"
defender replied, saying "I don't see how my health
can affect you. A man who cannot speak the truth
is not a fit acquaintance for me. I decline to shake
hands with you." On 22d October last he saw pur-
suer again at Dingwall railway station. Pursuer
pointed out witness with his stick and laughed,
which he believed he was in the habit of doing.
When the train stopped, Seaforth said, " How are
you, Drummond ?" when witness said, " Mac-
kenzie, after what has passed between you and
me the state of my health cannot concern you very
much." Ile said, " llow's that?" Witness said,
" I told you a year ago I did not want to say
anything to you about it, but since your memory
is so defective, there." With that the witness pulled
the paper which he had got in Inverness out of his
shooting coat pocket, and put it into the prisoner's
hand. Upon which he turned round and said, "It is
a pack of lies." Witness said, "Nobody is better
aware of that than you are, because they are lies
of your own making, with your own signature to
them." Seaforth then said, "Everybody knows
what sort of a fellow you are." Witness answered,

" Thank God, I am an English gentleman. You
call yourself a Highland chief, but it would take a
dozen of you to make an English gentleman." He
would swear he never called Seaforth athicf. Coun-
sel were heard at length, Mr. Young, for the pur-
suer, maintaining that defender's statement in the
witness-box was only a partial repetition of the
slander, and afforded no extenuation or apology,
while Mr. Fraser, for defender, denounced the action
as contemptible, and said that although the fourth
charge was partially admitted, that would not justify
the jury in finding damages. The Lord President
summed up, pointing out that such language, which
when used by persons in a low condition of life
might not be thought much of, became serious when
used by one gentleman of birth and station to an-
other. The defender had met this case on the record
not by apology but by dbial, although he had made
a partial admission in the witness box. The duty of
the jury under the issues was to find whether the

words were used ; they had not to consider the cause
of the irritation, though they must keep in view the
fact of irritation. If the jury found for the pursuer,
the damages must be more than nominal, though
not extravagant or vindictive. The jury found for
the pursuer, with £3,000 damages.