Odger's English Common Law

528 DEFAMATION.
Even then it will be open to the plaintiff to rebut this defence
by proving
(d) that they were published maliciously.
(rt) It is a question for the judge to decide whether in the
case before him the matter commented on is or is not one of
public interest. But it is quite clear that the public conduct
of every public man is a matter of public concern. So is
the management of every public institution ; the conduct of
every public body, imperial, local or municipal ; the adminis-
tration of the poor law in any locality, 1 and the sanitary
condition of any populous district. 2
Again, the following are unquestionably matters of public
interest :—All affairs of State ;
3 the administration of justice
(as soon as the case is over) ; ecclesiastical affairs ; * all books
published, all pictures publicly exhibited
;
6 all public enter-
tainments, theatrical performances, concerts, &c. ; all adver-
tisements and other appeals to the public. 6
(b) But it must be borne in mind that comment on wellknown
or admitted facts is a very different thing from the
assertion of unsubstantiated facts for comment. " There is
no doubt that the public acts of a public man may lawfully
be made the subject of fair comment or criticism, not only by
the Press, but by all members of the public. But the dis-
tinction cannot be too clearly borne in mind between comment
or criticism and allegations of fact, such as that disgraceful
acts have been committed or discreditable language used. It
is one thing to comment upon or criticise, even with severity,
the acknowledged or proved acts of a public man, and quite
another to assert that he has been guilty of particular acts
of misconduct." 7
It is not enough that the writer honestly
believed the facts to be as he stated them ;
if he asserts certain
1 Purcell v. Sowler (1877), 2 C. P. D. 215.
2 South Hetton Coal Co., Ltd. v. N. E. News Association, Ltd., [18941 1 Q. B.
133.
3 Parmiter v. Coupland (1840), 6 M. & W. 105 ; Wason v. Walter (1868), L. E.
4 Q. B. 73.
4 Kelly v. Tinling (1865), L. E. 1 Q. B. 699.
5 Sir John Carr v. Hood (1808), 1 Camp. 355, n. ; Strauss v. Francis (1866), 4
F. & F. 1107.
6 Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863), 3 B. & S. 769 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; Davis
v. Duncan (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 396.
7 Per cur. in Davis v. Shepstone (1886), 11 App. Cas. at p. 190.