Odger's English Common Law

WORDS CAUSING DAMAGE. 539
them. Only the jury can find that there was malice in the
defendant; all that the judge can do is to rule, in a proper
case, that there is no evidence of malice to go to the jury. 1
Proof that the defendant was actuated by malice will
destroy the defence of fair comment, as well as that of qualified
privilege ; but it does not in the least affect the validity of
the plea that the words are true. On the other hand, proof
that the words are untrue will not destroy either the defence
of privilege or that of fair comment, unless it be further
shown that the defendant knew or ought to have known that
his words were false.
In addition to awarding the plaintiff damages, the Court
has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction the publication of a
libel. But such an injunction will not be granted before the
trial, except in the clearest cases. Thus, an interlocutory
injunction will only be granted where, if a jury did not find
the matter libellous, the Court would set aside the verdict as
unreasonable; and not even then, if the occasion of publi-
cation be privileged, 2 or if the defendant has pleaded or
intends to plead a justification, and there is any reasonable
prospect of his proving the words true. 3
Words Causing Damage.
So far we have dealt with words which are defamatory,
i.e., words which have injured the reputation of the plaintiff,
either personally or in the way of his profession or trade.
But as a general rule an action will lie against any one who
has without just cause or excuse published any words which
are untrue, if their publication has caused the plaintiff
pecuniary loss. This is so, although the words are not defamatory,
so that no action of libel or slander will lie. A man
may deny the plaintiff's title to certain property, or disparage
the goods which he makes or sells, without casting any slur
on his moral character or professional skill ;
and such words
will in certain circumstances be actionable. The action will
i Someruille v. Bawkini (1851), 10 0. B. 590.
» Quartz Hill, $c, Co. v. Beall (1882), 20 Ch. D. 601.
8 Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch. 269 ; Monson v. Tussaud, [1894] 1 Q. B.
871.