“SLANDER” AND “LIBEL”

Waikato Independent, Volume XX, Issue 2275, 3 July 1920, Page 5

“SLANDER” AND “LIBEL”

DIFFERENCES AND DISTINCTIONS

. Ask a lawyer what kind of dispute brings the most cases in the Law Courts, and he will say—apart from ordinary claims for debt —libel and slander. Slander and libel have much in common. They both mean defamation of character; but while slander can only be by word of mouth, libel has to be printed or written. In a slander case one has to prove “special damage”—that one has suffered pecuniary loss. If you are in business a\d you hear that someone has been saying slanderous things about what you put on the market, you need not prove special damage. The reason is that this would concern your character and your business, and would be serious.

Were someone to say that you habitually came home drunk, or knocked your wife about, you would have difficulty in proving that by saying this they were damaging you in any way.

If immorality is imputed against a woman there is no need for her to move special damage. Slanders to the effect that a person has been guilty of a criminal offence or suffers from certain diseases are actionable “ without proof or special damage.’ ’ Prom the defendant’s point of view there is a great difference between libel and slander. If you are sued for damages for slander you have only to prove that what you said was true. Whereas, if you' are proceeded against for libel, the case will go against you unless you can prove that you published the statement for the benefit of the public and without malice. Therefore, one can be sent to prison for writing the truth, but not for speaking it! For slander to be actionable it must be ‘‘published” to somebody. You may say what you like to anyone’s face. He cannot sue you for slander unless someone else is present, as otherwise there would be no .“publication.”