136 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
of this institution ; and, taken in connection with what has occurred 
in your class, is, in our estimation, a position which you may not 
creditably to yourself continue to hold. We consider it our duty 
to forward a copy of this letter to Mr. Fletcher Menzies.” Now, 
this second part of the letter contained something additional to 
what was contained in the first part. It imputed blame to Mr. 
M'Bride, the pursuer, in not having called in the aid of the council 
at an earlier period to check the disturbances, and it blamed him 
farther for merely threatening the unruly students in his class with¬ 
out carrying these threats into execution. That was the whole of 
the letter. They would, in the next place, turn to the issue. The 
first question was—“Whether, between 4th and 18th March, 1868, 
both inclusive, the letter in the schedule annexed was written and 
sent by the defenders to the pursuer, and whether a copy thereof 
was sent by the defenders to Mr. Fletcher Norton Menzies, secre¬ 
tary of the Highland and Agricultural Society ?” Now, about that 
there could be no doubt. But the most important part was— 
“ Whether the defenders by the said letter did falsely and calum- 
niously represent to the secretary and directors of the said Highland 
and Agricultural Society, or to the said secretary or directors, that 
the pursuer was incapable of discharging the duties of the said chair 
of cattle pathology in a proper and efficient manner, and that such 
was the unanimous opinion of the members of the Edinburgh 
Veterinary College Council—to the loss, injury, and damage of the 
pursuer?” Now, the first question was whether in that letter the 
writers represented the pursuer as incapable of discharging the 
duties of the said chair in a proper and efficient manner ? The 
Lord Advocate said that that was not the true expression of the 
letter ; that they did not charge any incapacity against the pursuer, 
but merely that from circumstances they alleged that he had failed 
to preserve that order in the class which was necessary for teach¬ 
ing. It was a question for the jury whether the interpretation of 
the letter was fairly put in the issue. It appeared to him that the 
distinction between the one statement and the other was not very 
material, if there was nothing else in the case; because it was 
charged against a man that he had failed to preserve order in the 
class, and therefore could not teach the class, that amounted to 
incapacity in regard to that particular class. That was what was 
said in the letter. Then the next matter to consider in this part of 
the issue was whether this was, as the letter says, the unanimous 
opinion of the Veterinary College Council. There could be no 
doubt that the letter said that, and therefore it rather appeared to 
him that the letter generally represented that the pursuer was inca¬ 
pable of discharging the duties of the chair, and that that was the 
uanimous opinion of the College Council. Now, if that was so, 
then in any ordinary case of defamation that would be enough to 
establish the pursuer’s issue; but he must explain to the jury what 
he meant by an ordinary case of defamation. A person who used 
defamatory expressions against any other, in writing or verbally, 
could stand in two positions. In the one case there was no occasion 
