Odger's English Common Law

DEFAMATION. 517
"nor is there any instance of a verdict for a defendant on the
ground of want of malice. Numberless occasions must have
occurred (particularly in cases where a defendant only re-
peated what he had before heard, but without naming the
author) upon which, if that were a tenable ground, verdicts
would have been sought for and obtained; and the absence
of any such instance is a proof of what has been the general
and universal opinion upon the point." 1
Thus, where the printers of a newspaper by a mistake in setting up the
type inserted the name of a firm under the heading " First Meetings under
the Bankruptcy Act " instead of under " Dissolutions of Partnership," the
firm recovered damages from the proprietor of the paper, although an ample
apology had been made and no damage had followed the publication, and
there was no suggestion of malice. 2
Similarly damages were recovered
where the proprietors of a newspaper in all innocence announced that a
lady, who had in fact been married only a month, had given birth to
twins. 8
The plaintiff need give no evidence that the words are
false ; it is always presumed in his favour that they are
untrue ; it is for the defendant to prove that his words are
true. Nor need the plaintiff, as a rule, show that he has
sustained any actual pecuniary loss. If in any given case the
words. employed by the defendant have appreciably injured
the plaintiff's reputation, he has suffered an injury which is
actionable without proof of any other damage. Every man
has an absolute right to have his person, his property and
his reputation preserved inviolate. In some cases an injury
to the reputation of another is treated as a crime
;
4 in all cases
it is prima facie a tort and actionable, as a rule, without
proof of special damage caused to the plaintiff thereby. Just
as any invasion of a man's property is actionable without
proof of any pecuniary loss, so is any serious disparagement
of his good name. But in many cases, where the words are
only spoken and are not of so grave an import that they must
necessarily damage the reputation of the plaintiff, the law
refuses to presume any injury to the plaintiff and requires
1 Per Bayley, J., in Bromage v. Prosier (1825), 4 B. & 0. at p. 257.
2 Shepheard v. Whitaker (1875), L. E. 10 0. P. 502.
' Morrison v. Ritchie $ Co. (1902), 4 F. 645 (Ct. of Sess.).
* See ante, pp. 176, 181—183.