Mackay v Bacon - [1910] HCA 71

JAMES MACKAY

WALTER W. BACON

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Defamation-Stander uttered at public meeting-Evidence of other speeches made at

the meeting by third persons-Fair comment- Plea of truth. SYDNEY,

The plaintiff, who was a licensed slaughterman and carcase butcher, was Dec. 13, 14.

the licensee of slaughter-honse premises in the Canterbury Municipality which, in his application for the licence, were described by the plaintiff as an area about 100 acres. In addition to his slaughter house, the plaintiff had also a fat extraction licence for works situated on portion of the 100 acres, but this licence did not authorize the plaintiff to boil down diseased cattle which had not been slaughtered there. The plaintiff had taken carcases of diseased cattle on to these premises of 100 acres. The plaintiff sued the defendant for oral defamation uttered at a public meeting of a ratepayers' association called "to protest against the manner in which the Noxious Trades Act was being admin- istered in the Municipality of Canterbury, especially in regard to the carrying on of a knacker boiling down establishment without a licence." The meeting was opened by a speech by the Chairman, and certain correspondence was read, which had passed between the Ratepayers' Association, the Board of Health, and the Canterbury Municipality, in reference to the matters to be discussed at the meeting, and reflecting upon the conduct of the plaintiff in carrying on his business. The defendant in moving a resolution said in reference to the plaintiff's business: "If this establishment is not breaking the law and regulations it will take a very clever lawyer to get him out of it."

11 CLR 531

In a second passage in his speech the defendant said :-" If Mr. Mackay (the plaintiff) would like it publicly known that diseased carcases are being carted on to his premises we will do our best to advertise it for him."

Held, that it was for the jury to say what was the meaning of the words used by the defendant, and that they were properly directed that they could regard the first statement of the defendant as fair comment, and were entitled to find that the publication of the second statement was for the public benefit.

Held, also, that the speech made by the Chairman and the correspondence referred to were admissible in evidence.

Decision of the Supreme Court, 1st July, 1910, affirmed.

APPEAL by the plaintiff from the decision of the Supreme Court refusing an application for a new trial. The action was for slander uttered by defendant at a public meeting.

The declaration alleged that the plaintiff carried on the business of a licensed slaughterman and carcase butcher, and had for a long time supplied in his said business large numbers of the carcases of animals intended for human food to retail butchers and others whose business was connected with providing meat for the consumption of the public, and the defendant spoke and published…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mackay v Bacon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1910] HCA 71
Decision Date: 14 December 1910

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr. Mackay, a licensed slaughterman and carcase butcher, sued the defendant for oral defamation. The alleged defamatory statements were made by the defendant at a public meeting of a ratepayers' association convened to protest the administration of the Noxious Trades Act, specifically concerning a boiling down establishment operating without a licence. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's statements implied he was unlawfully bringing diseased carcases onto his licensed slaughterhouse premises and was recklessly indifferent to public health. The defendant pleaded not guilty and, in relation to the second statement, truth and public benefit. The Supreme Court of New South Wales refused an application for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the Chairman's speech and correspondence read at the meeting, and whether the judge had correctly directed the jury that the first defamatory statement could be considered fair comment. Furthermore, the court had to consider the validity of the defendant's plea of truth and public benefit in relation to the second statement, and whether the jury's verdict for the defendant was against the evidence.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The court held that the Chairman's speech and the correspondence were admissible as they provided essential context for the jury to understand the meaning of the defendant's words. Regarding the first statement, the court found that the judge had correctly directed the jury that it could be regarded as fair comment, as it was for the jury to determine whether the words constituted an assertion of fact or an expression of opinion on the plaintiff's conduct. The court also considered the plea of truth for the second statement, noting that the plaintiff had indeed brought diseased carcases onto his premises, and it was for the jury to assess the meaning and implications of the defendant's statements in light of these facts and the public interest in the matter.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court finding that the jury's verdict for the defendant was not against the evidence and that the trial judge's directions and evidentiary rulings were correct. The court concluded that the matter was of sufficient public interest to justify comment, provided it was not malicious and was relevant to the subject matter.

Orders