In an action for libel, it appeared that the defendant, with whom the plaintiff had lived as servant, in answer to inquiries respecting her character, wrote a letter imputing misconduct to her whilst in that service, and after she left it; and the defendant also made similar parol statements to two persons that had recommended the plaintiff to her: Held, that neither the letter itself nor the parol statements proved malice, and that, consequently the letter was a privileged communication, and the plaintiff not entitled to recover.
Citations:
[1829] EngR 459, (1829) 9 B and C 403, (1829) 109 ER 150
Links:
Defamation
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.322327