Lord Goddard. -

The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent to recover damages for libel published by the appellants of him in their newspaper the "Barbados Advocate." He complained of two publications, one in the issue of 3rd April 1943, and another in that of 15th April. The action was tried before the Chief Justice of Barbados and a special jury. His Honour held that the publication of 15th April was not defamatory of the respondent and withdrew it from the jury. There is no cross appeal so it is unnecessary to refer to it further. He left the other alleged libel to the jury, who gave a verdict for the respondent with £2296 5s. od. as damages, a curious sum considering that no special damage was alleged, and judgment was entered accordingly. The appellants appeal on the grounds (1) that the words were incapable of a meaning defamatory of the respondent; (2) that inadmissible evidence was received in that all the witnesses for the respondent were asked and stated the meanings they attached to the words; and (3) that the damages were excessive. Before setting out the facts it will be convenient to deal with the second of these grounds.

All the witnesses were asked not only to whom they understood the words to refer but also what meaning they attached to them. Where a plaintiff alleges that though he is not mentioned by name he is the person at whom an alleged libel is aimed, or where a name is mentioned, that it would be understood by those who know him to refer to him, witnesses can be called to prove that they understood the words to refer to the plaintiff. But they cannot be asked what meaning they attached to the words because that is the very question the jury have to decide. The Chief Justice ought to have disallowed those questions, but no objection was taken to them, and it is now too late to raise the question of their admissibility as a ground for setting aside the verdict. Moreover His Honour in a full and careful summing up, to which no exception can be taken, put the proper question to the jury, namely, what would a reasonably intelligent person understand the words to mean.

Turning now to the facts of this case, it appears that there had been considerable criticism in the Colony as to the appointments of Assistant Superintendents of Police, and in particular to the recent appointment of a member of the Palestine Police to one of these positions in Barbados in preference to a candidate who was already serving in the Island Police Force. The Government published an explanation of the reasons which influenced these appointments, which appeared in the "Trinidad Guardian" on 25th March. At this time there were two, and only two, former members of the Palestine Police occupying these appointments in Barbados, the respondent, who had been in the Colony for some five years, and Captain Holmes-a'-Court. On 3rd April the following letter appeared in the appellants' newspaper which circulates in Barbados :

"Police Officers:

To the Editor :

Sir,-I have just read to my utter dissatisfaction and surprise, in one of the local newspapers, a reproduction of what is termed therein 'Appointment of Barbados Police Officers explained': I must state, that to me, the reason given for the recommendation of the local candidate being appointed in some Force other than the Barbados Police Force is as perforated as a strainer.

Is there a more beloved and popular Police Officer in Barbados than the Deputy Commissioner, Major Goddard ? Certainly not. From whence came this worthy gentleman ? The ranks of course. Well, than, how can anyone be so short-sighted as to presume that we Barbadians of all other people would not give unto one of our own people the maximum support should the occasion arise, especially when we are aware of the fact that that person is reflecting credit on our sons of the soil ?

It is quite obvious that if one of our people is considered worthy of filling such a responsible position, our first conclu