On a motion for a new trial in a claim in defamation, a majority of the court held that passages in the same newspaper which were not complained of might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages complained of. At the trial, both counsel had read and commented on the various passages without objection.
May CJ said: ‘I have reason to think that Mr. Justice O’Brien entertains doubts as to the legal propriety of adducing in evidence other passages in the same newspaper in order to illustrate the meaning of the passages charged to be libellous. I cannot say that I concur in those doubts. If the language be ambiguous as to the nature of the felony imputed in this particular passage, it appears to me that other passages in the same newspaper, by the same person, dealing with these matters are properly admissible in order to remove such ambiguity.’
O’Brien J dissented, saying that such passages other than those complained of were not evidence to affect the defamatory sense unless ‘directly referred to, and in that way virtually made part of the libel.’
May CJ, O’Brien J
(1885) QB Div vol XVI LR Ir 97
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408770
