Both parties in this case having expressed their intention of employing no counsel, L have considered the arguments laid before me in the Record of appeal.
The Judgment, appealed from was given in an action for libel against the defendant, the now appellant. The libel complained of is a newspaper comment upon the charges of the lawyers at Yokohama, who happen to be an extremely limited class. No name is mentioned, but the plaintiff (respondent) contended that he was individually pointed at, and the Court below so found and awarded damages. The defendant pleaded that the impugned Matter contained no libel on the plainti, that the article was written for th public benefit and with no private or malicious intent, and offered to adduce evidence justifying the comments made. This evidence the Court below, relying on the case of Johnson v. Stewart, fused to receive, on the ground that no specific case was set forth. Although the evidence which wad adduced to show the applicability of the impugned comments to the plaintiff personally is, sosfar as it appears on the record laid before me, extremely slender, as is also the evidence of malice, I should be indisposed to interfere with the judgment of the Court assented to by both assessors, on a review of the evidence: But Zamof opinion that loo at the nature of the case, the libel compl of being a general one and not directed in dually a¢ the plaintiff, the evidence which the defendant proposed togive in justification was improperly rejected. Thecase quoted—Johnson Stewart—canonly apply where thereisno disyute as to the person aimed at, and where the fendant proposes to justify by adducing the plaintiffs own actions. Here it does not appear that the evidence offered to be adduced had any reference to the plaintiff whatever, and it is obviously possible that this evidence might have intueed the Court to come to a different conclusion as to the person Pointed at. On this ground therefore Pohink that a new trial should be had, and {shall direct that it take place before the acting assistant Judge at Yokohama with a Jury. Rules 172 and 104. It will be for the plaintif to avail himself of this direction if he thinks fit. Ifhe do so the costs of this appeal will follow the ultimate determination of the case. If he do not, I makino order as to the costs of this appeal,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.