## Facts

- Thorley was a tenant in Petersham, Surrey, and alleged he enjoyed a good reputation and credit among his neighbors.
- Lord Kerry wrote and sent Thorley a letter stating, in substance, that Thorley, “under the cloak of religious and spiritual reform,” acted “hypocritically” and “with the grossest impurity,” distributing “malice, uncharitableness, and falsehoods.”
- Thorley claimed the letter was defamatory and harmed his reputation, and he brought an action for libel based on the written publication.
- Thorley alleged he had not committed the misconduct implied by the letter and had been previously well regarded.
- A jury returned a verdict for Thorley and awarded damages, and judgment was entered in Thorley’s favor.
- Lord Kerry sought reversal by writ of error, arguing that the words would not have been actionable if merely spoken and therefore should not support a libel action.

## Issues

1. Whether written and published defamatory words can be actionable as libel even when the same words, if spoken, would not be actionable as slander absent proof of special damage.
2. Whether the law treats libel as broader than slander so that certain defamatory imputations in writing are actionable per se.

## Decision

- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the judgment for Thorley.
- The court held that an action may be maintained for defamatory words in writing even though an action would not lie for the same words if only spoken.
- The court treated the letter as actionable libel without requiring Thorley to prove special damage.

## Legal Principles

- Written defamation (libel) may be actionable where the same words, if spoken, would not be actionable as slander without special damages.
- Libel is actionable per se when the writing has a defamatory tendency; the claimant need not prove actual pecuniary loss as an element of the claim.
- The distinction between libel and slander rests in part on the greater seriousness attributed to written publication, including its permanence and capacity for broader circulation.
- Slander generally requires proof of special damage unless it falls within recognized categories of slander actionable per se; libel is not confined to those categories.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that written defamatory statements can give rise to liability as libel even when the same statements, if spoken, would not be actionable without special damages, reflecting the common-law view that written publication is inherently more injurious and therefore actionable per se.


Thorley v. Lord Kerry, 128 Eng. Rep. 367 (C.P. 1812)