Sunil Kumar vs Sonia on 29 July, 2024
In the landmark case of Alexander v. N.E. Rly (1865) 6 B&S
340, the plaintiff had been convicted of riding a train from
Leeds without having purchased a valid ticket. The penalty was
a fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he
defaulted on the fine. However, following the conviction, the
defendant published a notice that the plaintiff was convicted
and issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by
describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. The
defendants argued that the conviction was described with
substantial and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as they
differed in their literal meaning from the words of the
conviction were not libellous. Judgment was given in favour of
the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff was
sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to
be imprisoned. Blackburn J; noted that the substance of the
libel was true but the question was whether what was stated
CS No.220/2023 page 27 of 40
inaccurately was the gist of the libel.