This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

E. Hulton & Co. (D) printed an article written by its Paris correspondent that accused a man called Artemus Jones of being an adulterer. The article named the man and indicated that he was a churchwarden at Peckham. Jones (P) was a lawyer named Thomas Artemus Jones of North Wales. P was not a churchwarden and not did he reside in Peckham. P was however employed by D and had submitted articles to the paper on numerous occasions. At trial, P produced witnesses who had said they read the article and found it to refer to P. The trial judge charged the jury with not what the writer had intended but how the statement would be understood. P got a verdict for 1,750 pounds. D appealed. The House of Lords affirmed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.