We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
LIBEL OF ACTOR
203
In another case where the performances of a troupe of public performers were referred to as being coarse, farcical, wholly without merit and ridiculous, it was held that unless malice was established there could be no recovery.241 A reference to the manners of an actor as “ ungen tlemanly and discourteous” was however held actionable.242
As the reputation of an actor is dependent to a great extent upon the nature of the publicity given to him, improper forms of advertisement or type will sustain a cause of action for libel. Thus where a high class actor’s name was billed in very small type whereas he was accustomed to having it starred, the courts permitted a
(1793), 1 Esp. 28. “The editor of a newspaper may fairly and candidly comment on any place or species of public entertainment; but it must be done fairly and without malice or view to injure or prejudice the proprietor in the eyes of the public. If so done, however severe the censure, the justice of it screens the editor from legal animadversion; but if it can be proved that the comment is malevolent, or exceeding the bounds of fair opinion then such is a libel and therefore actionable.”
To the same effect: Hart v. Wall (Eng.) (1877), 25 W. R. 373. See also: Green v. Chapman (Eng.) (1837}, 4 Bing. N. C. 92; Morrison v. Belcher (Eng.), 3 F. & F. 614.
241 Cherry et al. v. Des Moines Leader (1901), 114 Iowa, 298; 86 N. W. 323.
McQuire v. Western News (Eng.) (1903), 88 L. T. 757. Referring to certain songs delivered during the performance of a play and to certain dancing therein as “vulgar” was not held to be libelous. See also: Thomas v. Bradbury (Eng.) (1906), 95 L. T. 23; Unwin v. Clarke (Eng.) (1908), Times, March 31; Murray v. Walter (Eng.) (1908), Times, May 6, 7, 8, 9.
See also: Wood v. Sandow (Eng.) (1914), Times, June 26, 30. The publication of an actor’s picture in connection with an advertisement is not ipso facto libelous.
242 Williams v. Davenport