The probate of a will containing libellous matter is in the nature of a libel ; Gallagh er's Estate, 10 Pa. Dist. R. 733.
The publication of a libel subjects the person who is legally responsible for it to both civil and criminal liability.
Publication. It must be shown that there was a writing and that it was published; 7 App. Cas. 741. The plaintiff must prove the publication ; 4 B. & Ald. 143. To constitute a publication the writer must communicate the matter complained of to at least one third person ; [1891] 1 Q. B. 527 ; and a communication to a wife containing reflec tions on her husband is a publication ; 13 C. B. 836 ; but not where the communication is from her husband; 20 Q. B. Div. 635. To read a libellous letter to another is a pub lication ; Miller v. Donovan, 16 Misc. 453, 39 N. Y. Supp. 820; or to dictate it to a sten ographer who gives it to another clerk to be copied ; [1891] 1 Q. B. 524; (contra, Owen v. Pub. Co., 32 App. Div. 465, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1033) ; or to a stenographer who typewrites and mails it ; Gambrill v. Schooley, 93 Md. 48, 48 Atl. 730, 52 L. R. A. 87, 86 Am. St. Rep. 414 ; but sending a writing in an unsealed envelope is not a publication, if not shown to have been read by others; Fry v. McCord, 95 Tenn. 678, 33 S. W. 568 ; nor is sending a defamatory cablegram, though in a cypher which could be easily interpreted; 23 T. L. R. 234.
The communication of libellous matter to another, requesting or intending that the latter should publish it, renders one liable as the publisher of a libel ; 9 Eng. Rul. Cas. 16 ; and a client who communicates defamatory facts to his attorney is responsi ble; Wimbish v. Hamilton, 47 La. Ann. 246, 16 South. 856. So where a husband and wife read together a libellous letter to the wife ; Kramer v. Perkins, 102 Minn. 455, 113 N. W. 1062, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1141; and where a letter to a wife reflecting on her husband is read by her; 13 C. B. 836.
Where the defendant kept a pamphlet shop and the libel was sold by the defend ant's servant in her absence and without her knowledge of its contents, it was held that the defendant was guilty‘of publishing a libel ; 1 Barnardiston, K. B. 306; 2, Sess. Cas. 33 ; see also 5 Burr. 2686, where Mans
field, C. J., said in a like case that proof of such facts was prima facie evidence of pub lication, but liable to be contradicted.
Where a circulating library circulates • a book knowing it to contain a libel, it is pub lication.
Where the action was against news ven ders for publishing libel by selling a copy of a newspaper containing it, and the jury found that the defendant did not know that it contained any libel and were not negligent in failing to have such knowledge, it was held that they were not liable ; 16 L. R. Q. B. Div. 354; Street v. Johnson, 80 Wis. 455, 50 N. W. 395, 14 L. R. A. 203, 27 Am. St. Rep. 42 ; so of a porter who delivers parcels con taining libellous handbills in ignorance of the contents of the parcel and in perform ance of his ordinary occupation ; 2 M. & R. 54.
It is well settled that the sale of a news paper Is, prima facie, the publication of a libel contained in it, but not if it is shown that the vendor did not know that the paper contained a libel, and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part, that he had no ground for supposing that the paper was likely to contain libellous matter; Street v. Johnson, 80 Wis. 455, 50 N. W. 395, 14 L. R. A. 203, 27 Am. St. Rep. 42. An ac tion against the seller of a newspaper con taining a libel is not maintainable without proof that some one read the libel; Prescott v. Tousey, 50 N: Y. Super. Ct. 12.
Every repetition of defamatory words is a new publication gad constitutes a new cause of action. In publishing a 'libel one is presumed to intend the natural conse quences of his act ; Wynne v. Parsons, 57 Conn. 73, 17 Atl. 362. It is not the law of the place where libellous articles are printed, but where they are published, which makes the words actionable ; Haskell v. Bailey, 03 Fed. 873, 11 C. C. A. 476, 25 U. S. App. 99. If a sovereign of a foreign state be the sub ject of a libel, he is entitled to the same re dress in the municipal courts of the country of the libeller as any subject of that country ; but he cannot complain if the judgment, aft er a fair trial according to the laws of the country, be adverse to him ; 2 Phil. Int. L. 135.