Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co [1865] 6 B & S 340
No finding of libel regarding inaccurate publication of conviction
Facts
The plaintiff had been convicted of riding a train from Leeds without having purchased a valid ticket. The penalty was a fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he defaulted on the fine. However, following the conviction, the defendant published a notice that the plaintiff was convicted and issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default.
Issues
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. The defendants argued that the conviction was described with substantial and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as they differed in their literal meaning from the words of the conviction were not libellous.
Decision/Outcome
Judgment was given in favour of the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff was sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned. Blackburn J noted that the substance of the libel was true but the question was whether what was stated inaccurately was the gist of the libel. The difference between the conviction and the statement of it published by the defendants did not make the latter in law libellous. The Court was not prepared to say whether, as a matter of law, the notice published by the defendants was libellous or that the inaccuracy regarding the term of imprisonment made a material difference. The question of the effect on the public mind of the statement that the period of potential imprisonment was longer than was actually issued was a question for the jury.
269 words
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the historical case of Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co (1865) 6 B & S 340. The case remains good law as a foundational authority on the defence of justification (now termed the defence of truth under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013) in defamation proceedings, particularly on the question of whether a substantially true statement can ground a libel claim despite minor inaccuracies. Readers should note that the common law defence of justification, which underpinned the reasoning in this case, has been restated and replaced by the statutory defence of truth under the Defamation Act 2013. Under section 2 of that Act, a defendant has a defence if the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. This codification broadly reflects the common law position illustrated by this case, so the core principle remains relevant. The case continues to be cited in academic and practitioner discussions of the substantial truth defence.
