Maisel v. Financial Times, Ltd [1915] UKHL 910
(Before Earl Loreburn , Lords Atkinson , Parker , Sumner , and Parmoor .)
52 SLR 910Maisel v. Financial Times, Limited.( On Appeal From The Court Op Appeal In England .)
Subject_ Reparation — Slander — Veritas — Innuendo — Proof of General Character. Facts:The appellant complained of certain Words as bearing the innuendo that he was of dishonest character. The respondents referred to a series of acts by the appellant, which they alleged proved his dishonesty. The appellant claimed to have these allegations struck out of the pleadings as irrelevant.Held that as the appellant maintained that the statements complained of meant that he was a dishonest person, the respondents were entitled to prove him to be so in justification of their statements.Their Lordships' judgment was delivered by
Earl Loreburn -It is not necessary to call upon counsel for the respondents in this case, because, in my opinion, the orderPage: 911 ↓
Now, inasmuch as by the construction which the plaintiff himself has placed upon the libel the defendants are sued for charging generally that he is a dishonest person (I am not using particular language, but in substance that he is a dishonest person), it is quite obvious that they are entitled to give particulars to show why they say that the plaintiff is a dishonest person, and for that reason I think that the appeal ought to be dismissed.Lords Atkinson , Parker , Sumner , and Parmoor agreed.Appeal dismissed.Counsel for the Appellant— Schwabe, K.C.— W. B. Odgers. Agent— W. G. A. Edwards, Solicitor.Counsel for the Respondents— Duke, K.C.— H. Fraser. Agents— Nicholson, Graham, & Jones, Solicitors.