The Duke Of Brunswick v Harmer; 21 Jun 1850

References: [1850] EngR 681, (1850) 3 Car & K 10, (1850) 175 ER 441
Links: Commonlii
If JH and MY be registered at the stamp office as ‘the sole proprietors’ of a newspaper, ‘that is to say, the said JH as legal owner as mortgagee, and MY as owner of the equity of redemption,’ this is sufficient to fix JH as a proprietor of the newspaper in an action for a libel contained in it. In an alleged libel, the writer suggested the propriety of the plaintiff ‘withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity,’ the word ‘natural’ being printed in italics. Held, that the plaintiff could not ask a witness what he understood by the word ‘natural’ thus printed, but that the jury might look at the paper and form their opinion as to the meaning.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer QBD ((1849) 14 QB 185, [1849] EngR 915, Commonlii, (1849) 117 ER 75)
    On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .