The Manitoba Free Press Company v. Martin.

The Manitoba Free Press Company v. Martin.

Because defendants did not plead truth as justification, evidence offered to establish a personal charge of dishonest conduct should not have been receivable; having been received, the plaintiff was entitled to offer rebuttal evidence which was wrongly rejected; the jury expressly stated they did not consider whether the words bore the plaintiff's innuendo, so the general verdict was insufficient and a new trial was properly ordered.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 518
Parties
Defendant; Appellant: Manitoba Free Press Company; Plaintiff; Respondent: Joseph Martin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 1892
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order granting new trial affirmed
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment, Justification/plea of Truth, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Verdict Sufficiency, New Trial
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Evidence Civil Procedure Libel Fair Comment Justification/plea of Truth Admissibility of Evidence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manitoba Free Press Company

Defendant; Appellant

Joseph Martin

Plaintiff; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants could introduce evidence proving a defamatory factual allegation without pleading justification (truth)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was entitled to rebut evidence defendants introduced to prove the defamatory allegation
  3. 3 Whether the jury's general verdict was sufficient when they did not consider the innuendoed meaning (personal dishonesty)

Ratio Decidendi

Because defendants did not plead truth as justification, evidence offered to establish a personal charge of dishonest conduct should not have been receivable; having been received, the plaintiff was entitled to offer rebuttal evidence which was wrongly rejected; the jury expressly stated they did not consider whether the words bore the plaintiff's innuendo, so the general verdict was insufficient and a new trial was properly ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order granting new trial affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • New trial to be held as ordered by the Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba