(PC) Civ. App. 69-D-66, 2/2/68, Hamlyn J.
Defendant allegedly called plaintiff a thief. The
Primary Court found that defendant had uttered the words complained of, but
that such word were justified in that they were true. Defendant had seen
plaintiff leaving a strange house in the early hours of the morning, and upon
asking him what he was doing, plaintiff ran away. Plaintiff never was convicted
or even charged, with theft, and indeed there is no evidence that he stole
anything from the house.
Held:
“(T)he term ‘thief’ was probably used in a colloquial sense as meaning a person
who was intent on stealing rather than one who was actually carrying the goods
of another away. It seems a fairly reasonable assumption by one who finds a
person silently coming out of the house of another in the dark hours of the
early morning, when that person flees, for the discoverer to chase him with a
shout of ‘Thief, thief’. And in the absence of any explanation by the
(plaintiff) as to what he was in fact doing at that time, the Court seems to
have been justified in reaching the conclusion that it did – that the appellant was not
entitled to compensation for defamation ……” Appeal dismissed.
