## Facts

- The plaintiff was the mayor of Winchester and a justice of the peace.
- The defendants, associated with the *Hampshire Advertiser* newspaper, published a series of articles over several months criticizing the plaintiff’s conduct in office.
- The publications imputed to the plaintiff partial and corrupt conduct in performing official duties and ignorance of those duties.
- The plaintiff sued in an action on the case for libel, alleging the publications defamed him.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the legal meaning of libel, noted that public officials’ conduct may be commented on more freely than private persons’ conduct, and left the jury to decide whether the words were libellous and calculated to injure the plaintiff’s character.
- The case came before the Court of Exchequer to review the propriety of the trial judge’s directions and the governing definition of libel.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a libel action, the judge must decide as a matter of law that the publication is libellous, or may define libel in law and leave it to the jury to determine whether the publication meets that definition and is injurious.
2. What legal definition of libel governs, including whether libel is limited to exposure to “hatred, contempt, or ridicule” or extends to broader reputational injury.
3. Whether criticism of public officials receives greater latitude than criticism of private individuals, and whether accusations of corrupt or unjust motives remain actionable when directed at a public officer.

## Decision

- The court approved the trial judge’s approach of defining libel in law and leaving to the jury whether the publication fell within that definition and was calculated to injure the plaintiff’s character.
- The court stated a classic definition of libel: a publication, without justification or lawful excuse, calculated to injure reputation by exposing a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
- The court recognized that statements may be treated differently when directed at a person in a public capacity, but held that imputations of corrupt or unjust motives are libellous whether directed at a public official or a private individual.
- The court found no reversible error in submitting to the jury whether the newspaper’s accusations of partiality and corruption met the legal standard for libel.

## Legal Principles

- Libel is a publication made without justification or lawful excuse that is calculated to injure another’s reputation by exposing the person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
- Libel involves a mixed question of law and fact: the judge provides the legal definition and elements; the jury determines whether the specific words satisfy that definition and are injurious.
- Public officials may be subject to freer comment on official conduct than private persons, but accusations attributing corrupt or unjust motives are actionable as libel absent a valid defense (such as justification or privilege).

## Conclusion

The Court of Exchequer affirmed that the judge’s role in a libel case is to state the legal definition of libel while the jury decides whether the challenged publication meets that definition and harms the plaintiff’s character, and it held that allegations of corrupt motives are actionable even when directed at a public official.


Parmiter v. Coupland, 6 M. & W. 105 (Exch. 1840)