128 / 196
Ltd. of Botanic Road, Glasnevin, were publishers of the
magazine. On October 21st, 1969 it contained what
purported and was stated to be an interview in London
with Mr. Quigley. It was written by Laurence Gough
who claimed to have interviewed the plaintiff. The
article was, in fact, false in that no such interview
ever took place. It was entitled "They Have Left This
Isle" and in a box underneath was the name of Mr.
Quigley.
Mr. Quigley instituted proceedings for libel against
the publishers and claimed not only was the whole
basis of the article false inasmuch as no interview
was given but that in addition, 15 specific statements
of fact in the article referrable to the plaintiff were
untrue. In particular he claimed that four portions of
the article were damaging to him.
Mr. Justice Walsh said that the question put by the
trial judge to the jury was whether the words referred
to meant that Mr. Quigley "does not act in Ireland
but chooses to live and work in London because the
financial rewards and opportunities are better than ay
home" To that the jury answered "yes". The jury also
found the words to be not true and they found the
words tended to lower the plaintiff in the eye of right-
thinking persons and they assessed damages in the sum
of £600.
The plaintiff in his evidence had agreed that he did
work outside Ireland to subsidise his work in Ireland.
He claimed that the words used in their ordinary
natural meaning were that he had left Ireland not for
any proper reason but solely out of love of money and
that insofar as he was seeking employment in Ireland
he was doing so dishonestly on a false basis since he
had decided to make a career overseas.
Mr. Justice Walsh said it had been submitted on
behalf of the appellants that the basis on which the
case went to the jury did not disclose anything which
was capable of being defamatory and that to say of a
person that he left the country to improve his financial
position would not in itself be defamatory.
The position of Mr. Quigley in the theatre in Ire-
land had been long established and was well known,
said Mr. Justice Walsh. "I cannot see that it would be
wholly unreasonable for a jury to find that it was de-
famatory to falsely say of him that the pursuit of
money is higher on his scale of personal preferences
than the development of or the exercise of his artistic
talent in Ireland. In my view, right-minded ordinary
people in this country could regard him as having
fallen in their estimation if that were the fact. For that
reason I cannot hold that the words complained of
were incapable of being defamatory."
In his view the trial judge did not misdirect him-
self in law in leaving the question to the jury. He dis-
missed the appeal and allowed the order of the High
Court to stand.
The Irish Times
(29th July, 1971)
FAILURE OF MORAL DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR
CHILDREN IN WILL
Application under S.17 of Succession Act 1965 by 3
children of the late Norman McNaughton, in which
they claim that their father failed in his moral duty to
make provisions for their benefit. Gross estate of
£430,000. Testator's father had established successful
builder's providers business in Dublin. McNaughton
Trust Company incorporated in 1950. The Testator first
married Pamela Workman in 1938 and they lived in
Gelbridge Abbey. They had four children—Malcolm,
born in 1939; Pamela Ann (now Mrs. Popplewell)
born in 1941; Brian, born in 1942; and Laura Victoria
(Mrs. Nouri) born 1946. The Testator inherited a stud
at Simondstown and the wife took a keen interest in
horse breeding. There was eventually a separation in
1956, and in 1957 he covenanted he would pay his
wife a yearly sum of £600 during their joint lives. In
1959, the father and family moved from Celbridge to
Beaufort Lodge. He had become friendly with Miss
Joan Ktelly and, the first wife having eventually obtain-
ed a divorce in England against him he married Miss
Kelly in a Registry Office in England in June 1966;
he had meanwhile covenanted to pay his wife £780
per month.
Malcolm, the eldest son, was duly associated with
the business. But Brian having a speech defect only
worked in the stud farm, and had no training in any-
thing other than agriculture and horse breeding. The
accountant of the business became worried about the
testator's liability to estate duty, and evolved an elabor-
ate scheme.
In 1967, although he had led Brian to believe that
he would inherit the stud farm, the Testator suddenly
decided to sell Simondstown for £120,000 and pur-
chased a smaller estate, Lodge Park. This move
estranged him completely from Brian, who came to
live with his sister Pamela in Dublin. The two sons
became entitled to £6,909 shares in the Trust Company
yielding £1,382 per annum, while the two daughters
became entitled to £3,454 shares each, yielding £691
per annum.
The daughter, Pamela Ann, was at first engaged
and married to a Mr. Lawson, and .a- most elaborate
marriage settlement was prepared. This marriage only
lasted a short time, and Pamela Ann obtained a divorce
in Mexico in 1966, and shortly afterwards married
her present husband, Mr. Popplewell in 1967. Brian
was employed in the company as supervisor of the un-
loading of timber, he is married since June 1969. The
last out of eight wills made by the Testator is dated
June 1966. In this he created a life estate for his
second wife until she died or re-married, and gave all
the shares in the Trust Company to Malcolm, and if
he should die, the residue to Brian. On the ground
that they had already been provided for, no provision
was made for the daughters.
In 1969, there were negotiations for a take over of
the McNaughton Company by Brooks Thomas, and
broad agreement had been reached, when the Testator
died in October 1969. Gross value of assets were
£430,000 and debts £75,000. When Probate had been
. obtained the first wife, who is now 61, brought pro-
ceedings in which she claimed that she was the Testa-
tor's spouse under the Succession Act 1965. The case
was compromised on the terms that the executors were
to pay £20,000 to Malcolm in trust for the first wife
during her life, and she was also to receive £2,000
per annum. The cost of the litigation came to £70,000
On account of the large amount of legal costs and
estate duty, there was nothing left for Brian. The
second wife is now 59 years of age.
Mrs. Popplewell, before marrying Lawson, had
obtained a diploma in physical training. After marry-
ing Popplewell she bought a house and four acres at
Kill, Co. Kildare. She and her husband have a total
joint income of £5,100. Brian has an annual income
of £3,632, and owns a house in Dublin. Laura (Mrs.
Nouri) married a Persian medical student who has
since qualified. She has bought
a
house in Blackrock,
130