What do you think?
Rate this book
Hatred, Ridicule or Contempt
‘It cannot be said that chastity is a necessary qualification for the management or ownership of a garage.’
Such a measured and memorable conclusion (from Ralston v. Ralston, 1930) suggests that the law of libel can at times be as quaint as a Cornish lane. Consider the case of Mr John Canning, who received a postcard telling him to ‘get back to his ruddy cage’. It transpired that in a recent book there had been a Mr Canning who ran from cage to cage in the Zoo to escape the police. Mr John Canning took action for libel. As did an actress, Mrs Porteous, who was said in a review to have performed like ‘a raging, frothing epileptic, rolling on the floor and biting her toe-nails’.
Many familiar figures take their place in the witness box in this curious and fascinating collection of libel cases - Lord Alfred Douglas, Winston Churchill, Horatio Bottomley, Prince Youssoupoff, Aleister Crowley, Harold Laski, and even the sons of W. E. Gladstone, fighting to expunge a charge of lechery against the G.O.M. of the Liberal tradition.
Such a measured and memorable conclusion (from Ralston v. Ralston, 1930) suggests that the law of libel can at times be as quaint as a Cornish lane. Consider the case of Mr John Canning, who received a postcard telling him to ‘get back to his ruddy cage’. It transpired that in a recent book there had been a Mr Canning who ran from cage to cage in the Zoo to escape the police. Mr John Canning took action for libel. As did an actress, Mrs Porteous, who was said in a review to have performed like ‘a raging, frothing epileptic, rolling on the floor and biting her toe-nails’.
Many familiar figures take their place in the witness box in this curious and fascinating collection of libel cases - Lord Alfred Douglas, Winston Churchill, Horatio Bottomley, Prince Youssoupoff, Aleister Crowley, Harold Laski, and even the sons of W. E. Gladstone, fighting to expunge a charge of lechery against the G.O.M. of the Liberal tradition.
272 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1953
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 23, 2025
This is a survey of libel and contempt law in England. Dean uses famous English cases to illustrate the law in this area. It was published in 1953. I read a 1964 Penguin paperback reissue.
Dean is a witty and clear writer. He explains the fine points of this confusing topic with clear writing and good examples. For instance, "the law is anxious that man with one vice may not accused of another, or that a man with one vice may not be made a cockshy for every sort of false rumor in the present. It is libel to call a drunkard a thief. It is libel to call a man a thief, merely on the ground that he served a sentence, or a half a dozen sentences for theft." ("Cockshy" is a perfectly acceptable English term for "an object of ridicule or criticism". I would still be careful how I used it.)
He tells great stories about professional plaintiffs who would try to goad newspapers into saying bad things about them and then suing. He also outlines the claims by individuals whose names were accidently used for the names of villains or bad guys in novels or movies. Those cases prompted the disclaimers about the novel or movie not intending to describe anyone in particular.
He has some excellent trial stories with great characters like Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill. He also explains that any serious libel trial got tried by a "special jury". Special juries were specially selected from jurymen whose houses were valued above a preset value. The idea was that these types of cases should not be judged by the riffraff. They were abolished in 1949, except for certain commercial disputes.
The law of libel and defamation has changed dramatically in the last seventy-five years. An updated version of this type of book would be welcome. Dean argues that libel law is necessarily a function of the times. He says, "it was libel in the seventeenth century to all a man papist; in the eighteenth a liberal; today a Communist and tomorrow perhaps a member of the Establishment.".
Dean is a witty and clear writer. He explains the fine points of this confusing topic with clear writing and good examples. For instance, "the law is anxious that man with one vice may not accused of another, or that a man with one vice may not be made a cockshy for every sort of false rumor in the present. It is libel to call a drunkard a thief. It is libel to call a man a thief, merely on the ground that he served a sentence, or a half a dozen sentences for theft." ("Cockshy" is a perfectly acceptable English term for "an object of ridicule or criticism". I would still be careful how I used it.)
He tells great stories about professional plaintiffs who would try to goad newspapers into saying bad things about them and then suing. He also outlines the claims by individuals whose names were accidently used for the names of villains or bad guys in novels or movies. Those cases prompted the disclaimers about the novel or movie not intending to describe anyone in particular.
He has some excellent trial stories with great characters like Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill. He also explains that any serious libel trial got tried by a "special jury". Special juries were specially selected from jurymen whose houses were valued above a preset value. The idea was that these types of cases should not be judged by the riffraff. They were abolished in 1949, except for certain commercial disputes.
The law of libel and defamation has changed dramatically in the last seventy-five years. An updated version of this type of book would be welcome. Dean argues that libel law is necessarily a function of the times. He says, "it was libel in the seventeenth century to all a man papist; in the eighteenth a liberal; today a Communist and tomorrow perhaps a member of the Establishment.".
Displaying 1 of 1 review