Law of Libel

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 113, 4 March 1886, Page 2

Law of Libel

F'mmens v. Pottle. — This action was against a firm ot newsvendors for a libel contained in a copy of Money, which they had sold in the ordinary way of their trade. The jury had found that the defendants dd not know that the paper j contained the libel, and were not negligent in not discovering that it was there. Mr Justice Wills had entered judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. The Master of the rolls said that the principle involved was very important. They were prima facie liable, because they had handed the paper containing the libel to a stranger, and this called upon them to show that they did not "publish" the libel. The charge against tbe defendants was that they disseminated the libel and so published it. But did they by disseminating it publish it? If the defendants had known the contents and disseminated it, that would have been a publication ; but here the jury found that the defendants did not know and ought not to have known that the newspaper was one likely to contain libellous matter. They were innocent disseminators of a paper containing a libel. The consequence of holding them liabel as having published this libel would be enormous. Every carrier who conveyed a newspaper containing a libel would be liable. The lord Justices concurred.