corporeally, pecuniary damage would not have to be proved, and, the imputation being defamatory, its falsity would be presumed and the burden of proving its truth would be laid upon the defendant. We should therefore have the interesting situation of the defendant in a slander action becoming, in essence, the plaintiff in a civil suit for murder. And really,” said Sir Charles in much perplexity, “I don't know what would happen then.”
“Er - what about privilege?” suggested Roger feebly.
“Of course,” Sir Charles disregarded him, “there would have to be stated in the declaration the actual words used, not merely their meaning and general inference, and failure to prove them as stated would result in the plaintiff being nonsuited; so that unless notes were taken here and signed by a witness who had heard the defamation, I do not quite see how an action could lie.”
“Privilege?” murmured Roger despairingly.
“Moreover I should be of the opinion,” said Sir Charles, brightening, “that this might be regarded as one of those proper occasions upon which statements, in themselves defamatory, and even false, may be made if from a perfectly proper motive and with an entire belief in their truth. In that case the presumption would be reversed and the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove, and that to the satisfaction of a jury, that the defendant was actuated by express malice. In that case I rather fancy that the court would be guided almost wholly by considerations of public expediency, which would probably mean that - - ”
“Privilege!” said Roger loudly.
Sir Charles turned on him the dull eye of a red - ink fiend. But this time the word had penetrated. “I was coming to that,” he reproved. “Now in our case I hardly think that a plea of public privilege would be accepted. As to private privilege, the limits are of course exceedingly difficult to define. It would be doubtful if we could plead successfully that all statements made here are matters of purely private communication, because it is a question whether this Circle does constitute, in actual fact, a private or a public gathering. One could,” said Sir Charles with much interest, “argue either way. Or even, for the matter of that, that it is a private body meeting in public, or, vice versa, a public gathering held in private. The point is a very debatable one.” Sir Charles swung his glasses for a moment to emphasise the extreme debatability of the point.
“But I do feel inclined to venture the opinion,” he plunged at last, “that on the whole we might be justified in taking up our stand upon the submission that the occasion is privileged in so far as it is concerned entirely with communications which are made with no animus injuiandi but solely in performance of a duty not necessarily legal but moral or social, and any statements so uttered are covered by a plea of veritas convicii being made within proper limits by persons in the bonafide prosecution of their own and the public interest. I am bound to say however,” Sir Charles immediately proceeded to hedge as if horrified at having committed himself at last, “ that this is not a matter of complete certainty, and a wiser policy might be to avoid the direct mention of any name, while holding ourselves free to indicate in some unmistakable manner, such as by signs, or possibly by some form of impersonation or acting, the individual to whom we severally refer.”
“Still,” pursued the President, faint but persistent, “on the whole you do think that the occasion may be regarded as privileged, and we may go ahead and mention any name we like?”
Sir Charles's glasses described a complete and symbolical circle. “I think,” said Sir Charles very weightily indeed (after all it was an opinion which would have cost the Circle such a surprisingly round sum had it been delivered in chambers that Sir Charles need not be grudged a little weight in the delivering of it). “I
Magdalen Nabb
Lisa Williams Kline
David Klass
Shelby Smoak
Victor Appleton II
Edith Pargeter
P. S. Broaddus
Thomas Brennan
Logan Byrne
James Patterson