Odger's English Common Law

WHAT DO THE WORDS MEAN ?
521
the defendants at a particular branch. After a quarrel with the manager
of that branch, the defendants sent a printed circular to a large number
of their customers (who knew nothing of the dispute) in the following
words :— " Messrs. Henty & Sons hereby give notice that they will not
receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital
•and Counties Bank." This circular became known to other persons, and
there was a run on the bank and loss inflicted. On an action being brought
by the bank for libel, it was held by the majority of the House of Lords,
affirming the judgment of the majority of the Court of Appeal, that in
their natural meaning the words were not libellous ; that the inference
suggested by the innuendo was not the inference which reasonable people
would draw ; that the onus lay upon the plaintiffs to show that the circular
had a libellous tendency ; that the evidence, consisting of the circum-
stances attending the publication, did not show it ; that there was no case
for the jury ;
and that the defendants were entitled to judgment.
Whether the words be written or spoken, it is for the jury,
not the judge, to determine what meaning they in fact con-
veyed. 1 " Libel or no libel is, of all questions, peculiarly one
for a jury." 2
what in law is a libel, and then to leave them to decide
It is the duty of the judge to tell the jury
whether the particular words before them fall within his
•definition or not. He may, if he wishes, state his own opinion
on the question. But if so, this is merely advice to the jury,
by which they are not bound. 3
"Where, however, the judge
is clearly of opinion that the words are incapable of
any defamatory meaning, it is his duty to direct the jury
as a matter of law to find that there is no libel. But he
should only stop the case in this way when he is con-
vinced that no honest jury could reasonably find the words
defamatory. 4
Whenever the meaning is not obvious, and also whenever
the words at first sight are not defamatory, it is the duty of the
plaintiff to set out in his pleading what he alleges the meaning
to be. This allegation is called an innuendo. The defendant
in his pleading invariably " traverses the innuendo," that is to
1 Dakhyl v. Labouchere, [19081 2 K. B. 325, n. ; and see Frost v. London Joint
Stock Bank (1906), 22 Times L. R. 760, and Chuholm v. Grant, [1914] S. C. 239.
2 Per Lord Coleridge*, 0. J., in Saxby v. Easterbrook (1878), 3 C. P. D. at p. 342.
8 Baylis v. Lawrence (1840), 11 A. & E. 920 ; Darby v. Ouseley (1856), 3
H. & N. 1.
* See McQuire v. Western Morning News, [1903] 2 K. B. 100 ; Thomas v. Bradbury
Agnew # Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 627 ; Moore v. Lawson (1V15), 31TimesL. R. 418.