[518]. The arguments are omitted.
[519]. The statement has been abridged, and the arguments of counsel together with a small portion of the judgment are omitted.
[520]. Merivale v. Carson, supra, 775; McQuire v. Western Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 100, 110; Joynt v. Cycle Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 292; Digby v. Financial News, [1907] 1 K. B. 502; Hunt v. Star Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 309, 317; Walker v. Hodgson, [1909] 1 K. B. 239; Starks v. Comer, 190 Ala. 245; Com. v. Pratt, 208 Mass. 553; Williams v. Hicks Printing Co., 159 Wis. 90; Putnam v. Browne, 162 Wis. 524 Accord.
In Walker v. Hodgson, Kennedy, L. J., said, p. 256: “Now it is true that there may be comment of an injurious nature in which there is no statement of facts, or which refers to facts which are admitted or are indisputable. In such a case the fairness of the comment depends upon the character of the criticisms, or the inferences of which it is composed, that is, whether it is a comment made honestly and bona fide, or a comment made mala fide and maliciously.... But where the words which are alleged to be defamatory allege, or assume as true, facts concerning the plaintiff which the plaintiff denies, and which either involve a slanderous imputation in themselves, or upon which the comment bases imputations or inferences injurious to the plaintiff, it is, I think, settled law that the defence of fair comment fails, unless the comment is truthful in regard to its allegation or assumption of such facts.” See also the remarks of Buckley, L. J., in the same case, p. 253.
In Hubbard v. Allyn, 200 Mass. 167, Rugg, J., said (p. 170): “The right of the defendant was not to make false statements of fact because the subject matter was of public interest, but only to criticise, discuss and comment upon the real acts of the plaintiff and the consequences likely to follow from them, or upon any other aspect of the case in a reasonable way. This may be done with severity. Ridicule, sarcasm and invective may be employed. But the basis must be a fact, and not a falsehood.”
Nor does it cover violent attacks and insulting statements. Press Pub. Co. v. Gillette, (C. C. A.) 229 Fed. 108; Jozsa v. Moroney, 125 La. 813; Hines v. Shumaker, 97 Miss. 669; Patten v. Harpers Weekly Corp., 158 N. Y. Supp. 70; Hayden v. Hasbrouck, 34 R. I. 556; Spencer v. Looney, 116 Va. 767; Williams v. Hicks Printing Co., 159 Wis. 90; Putnam v. Browne, 162 Wis. 524; Compare Dickson v. Lights, (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 834. And see Phillips v. Bradshaw, 167 Ala. 199.
[521]. Robinson v. Coulter, 215 Mass. 566; Tawney v. Simonson, 109 Minn. 341 Accord.
The burden is on the plaintiff to show malice, not on the defendant to show good faith. Jenoure v. Delmege, [1891] A. C. 73; Davis v. Hearst, 160 Cal. 143; Locke v. Bradstreet Co., 22 Fed. 771; Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517; Haft v. Newcastle Bank, 19 App. Div. 423; Strode v. Clement, 90 Va. 553.
Definitions of “malice.” Doane v. Grew, 220 Mass. 171; Peake v. Taubman, 251 Mo. 390. See Marney v. Joseph, 94 Kan. 18.
“If proof of a malevolent motive would rebut the privilege, which we do not decide, nothing less than that would do, so far as malice is concerned. It is true, as is said in the very careful brief for the plaintiff, that in most connections malice means only knowledge of facts sufficient to show that the contemplated act is very likely to have injurious consequences. Apart from statute it generally means no more when the question is what is sufficient prima facie to charge a defendant. Burt v. Advertiser Newspaper Co., 154 Mass. 238, 245. But sometimes the defence is not that the damage was not to be foreseen, but rests on what in substance is a privilege, whether of a kind usually pleaded as such or not, that is to say, on a right to inflict the damage even knowingly. In such cases, if malice in any sense makes a difference, as distinguished from excess over what was reasonable or needful to do or say under the circumstances, which often is included under the same word, Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235, 239, it means that the defendant is not within the privilege because he was not acting in bona fide answer to the needs of the occasion, but outside of it from a wish to do harm. See Wren v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730, 735, 736; Clark v. Molyneux, 3 Q. B. D. 237, 246, 247.” Holmes, C. J., in Squires v. Wason Mfg. Co., 182 Mass. 137, 141.