Alexandria Gazette

WRITTEN AND ORAL SLANDER.—In the case of Thorley vs. Lord Kerry, upon a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench, Mansfield, Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said:

'If the matter were for the first time to be decided at this day, I should have no hesitation in saying that no action could be maintained for written scandal which could not be maintained for the words if they had been spoken. I am very sorry this case was not discussed in the Court of King's Bench that we might have had the opinion of all the twelve judges on the point whether there be any distinction as to the right of action between written and parol scandal. For myself, I cannot, upon principle, make any difference between words written and words spoken, as to the right which arises on them of bringing an action. It has been truly urged that in the old books and abridgments no distinction is taken between words written and spoken. It has been urged that writing shows more deliberate malignity: but the action is not maintainable upon the ground of the malignity, but for the damages sustained. So, it is argued that written scandal is more generally diffused than words spoken, and it is therefore actionable: but an assertion made in a public place, as the Royal Exchange, about a merchant in London, may be much more extensively diffused than a few printed papers dispersed or a private letter. A newspaper, it is true, may be very generally read; but that is all casual. These are the arguments which prevail on my mind to repudiate the distinction between written and spoken scandal; but that distinction has been established by some of the greatest names known to the law: and the difference has been recognised by the Courts for at least a century back. We cannot, in opposition to them, venture to lay down, at this day, that no action can be maintained for any words written, for which an action could not be maintained if they were spoken.'