{"id":9570,"date":"2013-04-02T13:22:04","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:22:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legaldictionary.lawin.org?p=9570"},"modified":"2013-04-02T13:22:04","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:22:04","slug":"hulton-co-v-jones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlegal.eu\/hulton-co-v-jones\/","title":{"rendered":"Hulton & Co. V. Jones"},"content":{"rendered":"
([1910] A. C. 20). In defamation it need not be proved that the defendant meant to defame a person ; it is sufficient if Arsons who knew the plaintiff understood that the statement referred to him.
The appellants, in their newspaper, published in an article defamatory matter of one described as Artemus Jones, a churchwarden of Peckham, and married. The article was written as fiction, and was not intended to refer to the plaintiff who bore that name, but was not a churchwarden and was unmarried. The plaintiff’s friends understood the article to refer to him. Held, that defendants were liable<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n