Odger's English Common Law

518 DEFAMATION.
strict proof of some actual pecuniary loss, flowing directly
from the defendant's publication of the defamatory words.
In order, then, to establish a prima facie case in an ordinary
action of libel, the plaintiff has only to prove that the
defendant has published written or printed words defamatory
of the plaintiff. In all actions of slander the plaintiff has to
prove that the defendant spoke and published words defama-
tory of the plaintiff, and in many cases 1 he must go further
and show that special damage to himself has ensued from
their utterance.
(i.) Publication.
First, then, the words must be published. They must be
published by the defendant who is sued in the action, or by
some one who is his agent in that behalf. 2 They must be
published to some third person, not merely to the plaintiff
himself, for a publication only to a person defamed is in a
civil action no publication at all. 3 A publication to the plain-
tiff's wife is sufficient
;
4 but a publication by the defendant
to his own wife gives rise to no cause of action, because
communications between husband and wife are "held sacred." 5
Publication by the defendant to his own clerk or typist is a
publication in law, although the occasion is often privileged.
A libel may be published in various ways, e.g., by reading
it aloud, by selling it or distributing it gratis, by sending it
through the post or otherwise to any third person who opens
and reads it. A letter is published as soon as it is posted,
provided it is subsequently opened in due course and read by
any third person. 6
The two cases of Pullman v. Hill 7 and Boxsius v. Goblei Freres 8 may
be usefully contrasted. In the former a letter containing the alleged libel
1 See post, pp. 622, 525.
2 See Parkes v. Prescott (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 169.
3 It is otherwise in criminal proceedings ; see ante, p. 172.
4 Wenman v. Ash (1853), 13 0. B. 838 ; Jones v. Williams (1885), 1 Times
L. R. 572. .
6 Per Manisty, J., in Wennhak v. Morgan (1888), 20 Q. B. D. at p. 639.
8 See Uuth v. Huth, [1915] 3 K. B. 32 ; Powell v. Gelston, [19161 2 K B 615
J
i [1891] 1 Q. B. 524.
8
[1894] 1 Q. B. 842 ; followed in Edmondson v. Birch $ Co., Ltd., T1907] 1
K. B. 371, and in Boff v. British and French Chemical Manvfactitrwg 6'c.,Tl918 2
I
» L J
•
K. B, 677.