LAW OF LIBEL.

Grey River Argus, 15 May 1912, Page 7

LAW OF LIBEL.

WHAT IS PUBLICATION?

AN INTERESTING DECISION

Some interesting observations on the I law of libel were made in the Court of Appeal judgment delivered in t)i case of Angelini v. Antico.- . The parties were Gini Angelina, appellant, and 1 Carle Antico, respondent. !In the oriiginal action Angielini claim-e-4 damages for libel, alleging that defendant, .in a letter addressed to Antonio Gini, had published false and malicious statements regarding him. The letter had reference to certain family matters. His Honour tV. Chief Justice nonsuited plaintiff on die ground -that he had produced no evidence of publication. It was against this, decision that plaintiff .appealed. On the ; bench to hear the appeal were Mr. Justice Denni'ston (presiding judge), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice! Cooper. Mr. A. H. Hin.dmarsh appeared for the .appellant, and Mr. A. Fair for the respondent. The judgment of the court was deliivered by Mr. Justice DeiJnistos. His j Honour said that what was proved was a statement deposed to by one,. Moschini, that die plaintiff 'had in another action admitted that he had dictated the letter, the subject of the. alleged libel, to his wife's nephew. The Chief Justice was not asked to decide, and did not decide any question of privilege. The short question raised in ;'he case was : Is dictation to another person of a. letter containing defamatory matter without justification a publication to that o^her person? The judgment decided that cases quoted by counsel had no bearing on this point, and continued: "We are therefore' able to approach the question which is neatly and clearly raisftd by the present case, untrammelled by authority. It appears to us to be one to which only one answer is possible. 'Publication" as applied to actions fo,r defamation is the eommunica tfon of the defamatory matter 1 to .some person or persons other than the person defamed. That covers boi'h spoken and written dcfamalrlon. The dictation 'of defamatory matter to another is a publication of such matter. But such .dictation Ls slander and not libel. . . H is essential to the communication to anotJier part of a deifanVtory wining that such writting- should be in existence: before such communicattion — and iliki is of course a complete answer to the proposition that the creafcion of such defamatory writing from dictation can be a. communication of it to the person, who. is creating". It. ■It js a communication of its contents — which is the publication of a slander fi^om the mouth ( of the person dictating, but can only become a libel if subsequently .shown him, or by bis direction, lo sorao person other than the person defamed." , ; ' • , The appeal was dismissed ■with costs according to scale. j