Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeWatermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA and Davis AJA
Judgment Date04 December 1946
Hearing Date30 October 1946
CourtAppellate Division

Greenberg, J.A.:

The appellant instituted proceedings in the Cape Provincial Division for recovery of damages for defamation from the respondent company, the printer and publisher of a book entitled "Behind the Press in South Africa," which, according to the declaration, has been widely circulated and sold to the public in the Union of South Africa. The declaration says that the plaintiff is a Senator of the Union Parliament and Minister of Lands in the Union Government, and that, at all times material, the following facts, set out in para. 3 of the declaration, were generally known to the public of the Union and upon a perusal of the book became known to all its readers, viz.: -

3.

At all times material to this suit:

(a)

Plaintiff held the position of leader in the Cape Province of the Political Party known as the United Party and the position of chairman of the Board of Directors of the Unie-Volkspers Bpk.

(b)

"Die Suiderstem" newspaper was a mouthpiece in the Afrikaans language of the United Party in the Cape Province.

(c)

The Company controlling the "Die Suiderstem" was the Unie-Volkspers Bpk.

(d)

The Chairman of the Argus Printing and Publishing Company, a Company which controls a number of newspapers circulating in the Union which support the United Party, was Mr. John Martin.

(e)

The said John Martin was a supporter of the United Party and a confidant of the leader of the said Party, viz., one Field-Marshal Smuts."

Paras. 6 and 7 of the declaration read: -

Defendant maliciously caused to be published of and concerning plaintiff at pages 120-121 of the said book the following defamatory statement to wit:

On the outbreak of World War II the company controlling 'Die Suiderstem' was in a bad way financially, but it was helped very considerably by the

Greenberg, J.A.

Union Unity Fund, which bought £72,000 worth of shares in the Company. These shares are hold by Mr. J. W. Higgerty, M.P for Von Brandis, on behalf of General Smuts, who has the ultimate control, and the purchase helped very materially to tide the Company over and to enable Senator Conroy in December, 1944, to present a most glowing report to shareholders, although the accumulated loss had been reduced to a little more than £70,000.

Senator Conroy, the Chairman of Unie-Volkspers Beperk and Leader of the United Party in the Cape, is politically ambitious. Prior to the help that came its way from the Union Unity Fund the outlook for 'Die Suiderstem', in the judgment of an ordinary business man, was black, At a meeting of directors it was decided that the only solution was to make a more determined effort in the sale of shares in the Company to the public and Senator Conroy, in the interests of the Company, was appointed to sell shares. For the extra work involved he was eventually paid five per cent on the sales he achieved.

The Company was very much in need of a rotary press at the time and Senator Conroy was able to persuade Mr. John Martin to arrange for the sale to it of such a press for the nominal figure £1. The press was afterwards valued at £17,000, on which Senator Conroy, in the interests of the Company, was also paid a commission...

Apart from the press controlled by Senator Conroy, the United Party has on the Afrikaans side the two publications, 'Die Volk' and 'Die Vrystater', under the direction of Dr. Colin Steyn, Minister of Labour, and the journals 'Eendrag' (Johannesburg) and 'Die Natalse Afrikaner' with 'Die Vaderland' standing aloof and independent of either party and presenting a sane, rational outlook that has been refreshing."

(7) The said statement conveyed to the readers of the said book certain defamatory imputations of and concerning plaintiff both in his personal capacity and in his capacities as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Unie-Volkspers Bpk and as Leader of the United Party in the Cape to wit :

"That plaintiff, having induced Mr. John Martin to donate for a nominal consideration of £1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae)
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...referred to D Channing v South African Financial Gazette Ltd and Others 1966 (3) SA 470 (W): referred to Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015: referred De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) (1998 (7) BCLR 779): referred to De Wet v Morris 1934 EDL 75: referred to E De......
  • Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Others v Esselen's Estate
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...those words as conveying a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. Basner v Trigger 1945 AD 22 at 32; Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015 at 1018. The yardstick by which defamatory matter is assessed is that of the fictitious, normal, balanced, right-thinking and reasonable person wh......
  • Van der Linde v Calitz
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...agting van 'n ander vir eiser en 'n ander se begeerte om met eiser te assosieer sou verminder. Sien Conroy v Stewart Printing Co. Ltd., 1946 AD 1015 op bl. 1018. En dit is derhalwe per se lasterlik, sonder om vir 'n ander betekenis vatbaar te wees. Die verweerskrif toon geen antwoord op hie......
  • Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae)
    • South Africa
    • Constitutional Court
    • February 19, 2010
    ...10; Botha above n3; Hassen v Post Newspapers (Pty) Ltd and Others 1965 (3) SA 562 (W) at 564E – G; and Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015 at [11] Mohamed and Another v Jassiem 1996 (1) SA 673 (A) at 706H – J. [12] Id at 709A – F; and Hix Networking Technologies v System Publisher......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae)
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...referred to D Channing v South African Financial Gazette Ltd and Others 1966 (3) SA 470 (W): referred to Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015: referred De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) (1998 (7) BCLR 779): referred to De Wet v Morris 1934 EDL 75: referred to E De......
  • Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Others v Esselen's Estate
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...those words as conveying a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. Basner v Trigger 1945 AD 22 at 32; Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015 at 1018. The yardstick by which defamatory matter is assessed is that of the fictitious, normal, balanced, right-thinking and reasonable person wh......
  • Van der Linde v Calitz
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...agting van 'n ander vir eiser en 'n ander se begeerte om met eiser te assosieer sou verminder. Sien Conroy v Stewart Printing Co. Ltd., 1946 AD 1015 op bl. 1018. En dit is derhalwe per se lasterlik, sonder om vir 'n ander betekenis vatbaar te wees. Die verweerskrif toon geen antwoord op hie......
  • Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae)
    • South Africa
    • Constitutional Court
    • February 19, 2010
    ...10; Botha above n3; Hassen v Post Newspapers (Pty) Ltd and Others 1965 (3) SA 562 (W) at 564E – G; and Conroy v Stewart Printing Co Ltd 1946 AD 1015 at [11] Mohamed and Another v Jassiem 1996 (1) SA 673 (A) at 706H – J. [12] Id at 709A – F; and Hix Networking Technologies v System Publisher......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Social media, online communications and defamation in the workplace: A puzzle for liabilities?
    • South Africa
    • South African Intellectual Property Law Journal No. , February 2020
    • February 12, 2020
    ...so much to lose: Trut h as a defence in the South Afric an law of defamation’ (2011) 128 SALJ 454.5 Conroy v Stewa rt Printing Co Ltd 19 46 AD 1015 –1018; Botha v Marai s 1974 (1) All SA 208 (A); 1974 1 (SA) 44 (A).6 Z Leko ma ‘Online defamat ion: The ugly face of social media’ (2013) 13(9)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT