In accordance with the principle of English law that a master is liable for all acts of his servant done in the ordinary course of the servant's employment, the proprietor of a newspaper is civilly liable for any libel which appears in its columns, even though the libel may have been published in his absence, without his know ledge and contrary to his express orders, for the editor is his servant and it is within the scope of the editor's employment to send to the printers of the paper whatever matter he thinks ought to be published. But the proprietor of a newspaper is not liable to criminal proceedings in respect of any libel which appears in its columns if he can prove that such publication was made with out his authority, consent or knowledge, and did not arise from want of due care or caution on his part (Lord Campbell's Libel act, 1843, 5. 7). The mere fact that he has given the editor a general authority to publish what he thinks proper is not in itself evidence that he authorized or consented to the publication of the libel (R. v. Holbrook & Others [1877] 3 Q•B•D• 35).
Criminal proceedings will sometimes lie where an action will not. Thus it is a crime, though not actionable, to write and pub lish defamatory words of a deceased person, provided it is done with intent to injure and bring contempt on his posterity, and so provoke them to a breach of the peace (R. v. Topham [1791] 4 Term R. 126). So it is a crime, though not actionable, to write and publish words injurious to the reputation of any class or body of persons the Durham police), provided that the words tend to excite the angry passions of the class or body li belled, or of the general public against the class or body libelled, and so lead to a breach of the peace (R. v. Osborne [1732] 2 Swanst. 503, n.).
Scots Law.—The Scots law of defamation differs in many re spects from the English law in so far as questions of procedure and pleading are concerned. To take one example : in Scottish
practice the question of libel or no libel, in so far as it is a ques tion for the court only, is not left to be raised at the trial but is decided at the stage when the issues are adjusted by the lord ordinary. In so far, however, as the substantive law is concerned, the only differences between the two systems are that in Scotland (I) the law makes no distinction between written and oral def amation; (2) publication :s not essential to found an action: a defamatory letter sent to the person defamed, or a slander uttered in his presence only, entitle him to that element, at least, of damages which is called solatium; (3) a husband is not liable for defamatory words published by his wife; (4) there is no criminal remedy for defamation.
American Law.—American law differs in very few respects from that of England. In so far indeed as the common law is concerned they may be said to be substantially identical. In some jurisdictions, e.g., Delaware, Florida, Nebraska and Louis iana, the fact that a libel is true is in itself no defence; the de fendant must go further and show that it was published under such circumstances as justify the conclusion that he acted with good motives and for justifiable ends. In Massachusetts the fact that a libel is true is a complete defence unless a malicious in tention on the part of the defendant can be proved. These statutory provisions do not apply to slander.