Odger's English Common Law

526 DEFAMATION.
maliciously. 1
Unless the occasion be shown to be privileged,
it is no justification that the libellous matter was previously-
published by a third person, and that the defendant, at the
time of his publication of it, disclosed the name of that
person and honestly believed the information to be true. 2
Truth.
It is a complete answer to any action of libel or slander
(though alone it is not a defence in criminal proceedings) for
the defendant to prove that his words are true. It is presumed
in the plaintiff's favour that all defamatory words are
false. The plaintiff therefore need give no evidence to show
that the words are false : it is for the defendant to prove they
are true ; and he will not be allowed to try and prove this,
unless he has specially pleaded in his Defence that the words
are true. This special plea is called a plea of justification.
It must justify the whole charge and the precise charge
made against the plaintiff. The defendant cannot plead that
he published other words, not those of which the plaintiff
complains, and that such other words are true. 3
So if the
words be "A. said that the plaintiff had been guilty of
fraud, &c," it is not enough for the defendant to prove that
A', said so ; he must go further and prove that the plaintiff
had in fact been guilty of fraud.
It will be sufficient, however, if the defendant can prove
that every imputation which he has made is substantially
true. A slight inaccuracy as to some detail will not prevent
his succeeding, if such inaccuracy in no way alters the
character of the imputation. But if the words which the
defendant cannot prove to be true are a material aggravation
of the main imputation, or insinuate some further charge in
addition to it, the plaintiff will be entitled to a verdict. The
test always is—did the words as published have a different
effect on the mind of the reader from that which the actual
truth would have produced ? *
1 Belt v. Lawes (1882), 51 L. J. Q. B. 359.
2 Tidman v. Ainslie (1854), 10 Bxch. 63 ; and Watkin v. Hall (18681, v ' L B.
3Q. B. 396.
3 Rassam v. Budge, [1893] 1 Q. B. 571.
' Contrast, for instance, the cases of Alexander v. N. E. By Co (1865) 34 L J