JONES v. HULTON
Sift,—The writer of the article commenting on the Report of the Porter Committee has, like many other lawyers and perhaps still more publishers and authors, misunderstood the case of Jones v. Hulton. Mr. Artemui Jones (as he, then was) did not sue the newspaper correspondent, who did not know him and clearly had no intention to defame. (Sub-conscious memory probably accounted for the choice of name, as corresponden; and plaintiff had worked for the same group of newspapers.) The actioq was brought against the proprietor of the newspaper, who did know the plaintiff, who admitted in cross-examination that he had read the article, in proof, that at first reading he thought it referred to the plaintiff and yet allowed it to be published as it stood. Paragraph 64 of the Report runs as follows : - " We do not recommend that the publication of a suitable con. rection and apology should absolve from liability for damages 4,
defendant who has not taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that what he proposes to write, publish or print is not defamatory. If there has been a want of reasonable care on the part of the defendant in publishing defamatory matter, he should be subject to the ordinary common law liability."
In view of this paragraph and the above mentioned facts your con- tributor is clearly incorrect in saying thatymder the Committee's proposal Artemus Jones would have got no damages but only a correction and
Previous page
