Citation. 220 F. Supp. 598, 1963 U.S. Dist.
Brief Fact Summary. E. Hulton & Co. (Defendant) wrote defamatory language using Plaintiff’s name. Defendant claimed it should not be held liable for libel because it used Defendant’s name as a fictitious name and had never even heard of Plaintiff.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The fact that Defendant did not intend to defame Plaintiff is not a defense to the claim of libel.
Defendant printed an article that accused a man named Artemus Jones of adultery. In the article, Artemus was a churchwarden who resided at Peckham. Plaintiff was a lawyer named Thomas Artemus Jones of North Wales. Plaintiff was not a churchwarden and did not reside at Peckham. Defendant never heard of Plaintiff and had used the name Artemus Jones as a fictitious name. Plaintiff produced witnesses who said they had read the article and thought that it referred to Plaintiff. Plaintiff received a jury verdict in the amount of