If in a libel asterisks be put instead of the name of the party libelled, to make it actionable, it is sufficient that the party should be so designated, that those who know the Plaintiff, may understand that he is the person meant; and it is not necessary that all the world should understand it. But if witnesses, who stated that they understand that the plaintiff is the person, also say that they were enabled so to understand by perusal of another libel, with which the defendant had no concern, their evidence ordered to be laid out of the case. If a letter sent out as inducement be alleged to contain ‘the words and the matter following’, and when the letter is read in evidence, it is found to contain all that is stated in the declaration, and something more, this is no variance.
Abbott CJ directed the jury: ‘The question for your consideration is whether you think that the libel designates the plaintiff in such a way as to let those who knew him understand that he was the person meant. It is not necessary that all the world should understand the libel; it is sufficient if those who know the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant.’
Abbott CJ
[1826] EngR 1155, (1826) 2 Car and P 307, (1826) 172 ER 138 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.325919 br>