as fellow-officers of the same Association. It thereupon became and was his duty to write the said letter to the said A. B., and he wrote it in the honest discharge of such duty and in the bona fide belief that the statements therein contained were true, and without any malice towards the plaintiff." No. 55. Competitors at a Poultry Show. The plaintiff and defendant are both members of the "Hemel Hempstead Poultry Club," and were competitors at the Annual Show of the club in 1886. Complaints were made during the show of the plaintiff's conduct as such competitor, and eventually several other members lodged a written protest against the plaintiff being allowed to compete. By the rules of the club it was the duty of the committee to investigate this dispute. The said committee wrote to the defendant, who had not signed the protest, and requested him to state to them all he knew or had heard as to the said complaints and as to the other matters referred to in the said protest. Thereupon the defendant in compliance with such request wrote the letter which is the alleged libel. Such letter was written by the defendant without any malice towards the plaintiff and with the sole object of guiding and assisting the said committee in their inquiries, and in the honest belief that every statement therein contained was true, and was a communication made bonâ fide on a matter in which the defendant had an interest and in reference to which he had a duty to perform, and was published only to the said committee who had a corresponding interest and duty in that behalf. No. 56. Vendor and Purchaser. Before the publication of the alleged slander the defendant had entered into a written contract to purchase a field from a friend of his, Mr. K. Mr. K. employed the plaintiff as his solicitor to act for him in the matter. The plaintiff unnecessarily delayed the completion of the said purchase and omitted to answer the defendant's requisitions for an unreasonably long time, though both Mr. K. and the defendant were anxious for a speedy settlement. In consequence of the plaintiff's delay, the date originally fixed for completion passed; and then the plaintiff persuaded Mr. K. to claim from the defendant interest on the purchase-money, which the defendant refused to pay on the ground that his money had for months been lying idle at the bank, and that the matter would have been completed on the day originally fixed, had the plaintiff used reasonable dispatch. This dispute still further delayed the completion of the said purchase, and also greatly increased the amount of the costs which both Mr. K. and the defendant would have to pay their respective solicitors. Both Mr. K. and the defendant had a common interest in keeping down the amounts of the said costs, and in effecting a prompt and amicable settlement of the said dispute, and in the speedy completion of the said purchase. Thereupon Mr. K. wrote a letter to the defendant inquiring as to these matters, and asking especially as to the cause of the unusual delay. It thereupon became and was the duty of the defendant in answering the said letter to state confidentially to Mr. K. his opinion as to the way in which the plaintiff was conducting this business; and in discharge of such duty the defendant wrote and published the letter set out in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim. This letter was published by the defendant to the said Mr. K. alone, and related solely to the said matters in which the defendant and Mr. K. had such common interest as aforesaid, and was written in furtherance of such common interest, and in answer to the said letter from Mr. K., and under a sense of duty, and without malice, and in the bonâ fide belief that every word contained in the said letter was true, and not otherwise, and is therefore privileged. No. 57. Report of a Judicial Proceeding. 1. The defendant is the proprietor of the County Gazette. 1886 the plaintiff applied to the division of the said county, at a special licensing sessions, for a spirit licence. This application the magistrates refused. 3. On the day of 1886 the defendant published as usual in the said Gazette a report of the proceedings before the said magistrates on the preceding day, including an accurate and impartial account of the plaintiff's application and the reasons stated by the bench for their refusal, which is the alleged libel. 4. Such account was published by the defendant bonâ fide, and without malice, and for the public benefit, and in the usual course of the defendant's business and duty as a public journalist, and was and is a correct, fair and honest report of the said proceedings. No. 58. A shorter Form. "The said words formed part of a fair and accurate report of certain proceedings in the Westminster Police Court upon a charge of theft brought against the plaintiff, and were published bonâ fide and without malice in the course of the defendant's business as a journalist, and are therefore privileged." No. 59. Report of a Judgment published as a Pamphlet. MACDOUGALL v. KNIGHT & SON, 17 Q. B. D. 636; 55 L. J. Q. B. 464; 34 W. R. 727; 55 L. T. 274. "1. The defendants admit that they published of the plaintiff a pamphlet which is a verbatim report of the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice North, given on the 30th day of June 1884 in the action of MacDougall v. Knight and Son, and which really gives all the information necessary to be known by anyone feeling an interest in the matter. But the defendants deny that they did so falsely, or maliciously, or that they distributed the said pamphlet broadcast in the city of Bath, or the counties of Somerset and Gloucester, or elsewhere, or at all. "2. The said pamphlet contained the words set out in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim. The said words were in fact spoken by the Honourable Mr. Justice North in delivering judgment in the said action; but the defendants do not admit that he or they published the said words with the meanings alleged in the said paragraph. "3. The defendants are auctioneers and upholsterers carrying on business at Bath, and having a large number of customers resident in Bath and the neighbourhood. The plaintiff brought the said action against the defendants in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, charging the defendants with breach of contract, misrepresentation and breach of faith. The said action was assigned for trial to the Honourable Mr. Justice North, who after a trial which lasted five days gave judgment in favour of the defendants. The said pamphlet is a fair, accurate and honest report of the said judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice North, and was published by the defendants bona fide and with the honest intention of making known the true facts of the case, and in order to protect their reputation and their said business, and in reasonable self-defence, and without any malice towards the plaintiff.” No. 60. Report of a Public Meeting privileged by virtue of Sect. 2 of the The words set out in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim were printed and published in a newspaper and were part of a report of the proceedings of a public meeting which was lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and open to the public, and such report was fair and accurate and was published without malice, and the publication of the said words was for the public benefit. It is not sufficient to allege that the publication of the said report was for the public benefit (Pankhurst v. Sowler, 3 Times L. R. 193, ante, p. 381). No. 61. The defendant has refused to insert in the newspaper in which the report containing the said words appeared, a reasonable letter or statement of explanation or contradiction by or on behalf of the plaintiff. No. 62. Statute of Limitations. The alleged cause of action did not accrue within six years before. this suit. Or in the case of slander actionable per se : The words complained of were not spoken within two years before this suit. (See ante, p. 520.) Or, The defendant will rely upon the Statute of Limitations (21 Jac. I. c. 16). No. 63. Previous Action. 1887 day of Division of this The plaintiff heretofore, to wit, on the (date of writ), sued the defendant in the Honourable Court, for the same cause of action as is alleged in the statement of claim herein; and such proceedings were thereupon had in that action that the plaintiff afterwards by the judgment of the said court recovered against the defendant £- for the said cause of action, and his costs of suit in that behalf; and the said judgment still remains in force. [State in the margin of the plea the date when such judgment was signed, and the number of the roll in which such proceedings are entered. (Reg. Gen. Hilary Term, 1853, r. i0.)] A plea that judgment was recovered against a joint publisher will also be a bar to an action against the others for the same publication. (Ante, p. 522; and see form of plea in Duke of Brunswick v. Pepper, 2 C. & K. 683, n.) A plea that in a former action judgment was given against the plaintiff, is really a plea in estoppel. Commence as above. And such proceedings were thereupon had in that action that afterwards and before this suit it was adjudged that the plaintiff should recover nothing against the defendant, and that the defendant should recover against the plaintiff £ for his costs of defence. The 1887, and day of said judgment was signed on the still remains in force. [The proceedings are entered on roll, No. ] Wherefore the defendant says that the plaintiff is estopped, and ought not to be admitted to bring the present action against the defendant. |