Again, newspaper proprietors might well be held liable for publishing a ridiculing criticism of language pretended to be quoted from the book which the critic is reviewing, but which language the author of the book had not actually used.
If the publishers who are defendants in a libel suit are unable to show that the defamatory publication is true or that it is privileged, then the injured plaintiff is entitled to a verdict in some amount. How small this sum shall be will depend upon how good a case the defendants can make out in mitigation of damages. The range of defenses that may be interposed for this purpose is very broad. The following may be enumerated as the most important:
(1) That the general conduct of the plaintiff gave the defendant "probable cause" for believing the charges to be true.
(2) That the complainant's general character is bad.
(3) That the publication was made in heat and passion, provoked by the acts of the plaintiff.
(4) That the charge published had been made orally in the presence of the plaintiff before publication, and he had not denied it.
(5) That the publication was made of a political antagonist in the heat of a political campaign.
(6) That as soon as the defendant discovered that he was in error he published a retraction, correction or apology.
(7) That the defamatory publication had reference not to the plaintiff, but to another person of a similar name, concerning whom the charges were true, and that readers understood this other individual to be meant.