Straight, J. and Tyrrell, J.:— We are by no means prepared to accept in its integrity the view pressed upon us by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, that the defamatory matter complained of by the plaintiff-appellant is absolutely privileged, because it was contained in a petition filed in the Magistrate's Court, in respect of a case pending therein. No doubt the principles enunciated in numerous English decisions bearing upon the point strongly favour his contention. But we do not consider time we are arbitrarily bound to follow those precedents, or to adopt them as conclusively applicable to all libel or slander suits in our Courts. The state of society and the condition of things in the two countries is wholly dissimilar; and to lay it down as an inflexible rule that any false and malicious statements, no matter how defamatory, may be made with impunity if only embodied in a petition filed in reference to some pending case, could not but entail the most mischievous consequences. At any rate it seems to us that when there is substantive law which case be appealed to for information and guidance, the safer course is to look there to ascertain some intelligible rule or rules by which determination of suits' like the present should be regulated. Although the provisions of the Penal Code with regard to defamation are applicable to criminal charges, the principles therein embodied are well adapted to supply the tests by which the liability or otherwise of defendants to civil suits should be decided. It is difficult to see wily, when no distinction is dawn by the criminal law between written and spoken defamatory matter and both are held equally punishable, that an absolute privilege should be accorded a defendant to protect him from pecuniary liability which would not avail him in the Criminal Court. Wo therefore do not think that the doctrine of absolute privilege propounded by the respondent's counsel should be unreservedly followed in our Courts, and so far as the Judge has applied it in determining the present case, his judgment appears to us to be open to objection. Fortunately, however, he dealt with the appeal before him from another aspect which we consider the right one, and has recorded a sufficient finding which will justify us in upholding his decision. The true test by which the liability of the defendant had to be tried was, did he in his petition of 17th September, 1879, make the imputations upon the plaintiff in good faith, that is with due care and caution, for the protection of his own interests? This the Judge has answered, by finding that “the evidence in the case is sufficient to show that the defendant had adequate reasons for supposing that Abdul Hakim was at the bottom of the charges against him: these charges were obviously and clearly made for the purpose of extorting money.” Then after recapitulating some of the evidence, he goes on to say: “This independently of other evidence in the case is enough to show that Tej Chandar Mukarji was not acting recklessly or groundlessly in making the statements contained in his petition.” We cannot say, as asked by the appellant's pleader, that there was no evidence to justify the Judge in coming to this conclusion. On the contrary, there certainly was some from which he might not unreasonably draw the inferences at which he arrived. It is not essential that, before a person can be held entitled to the privilege of having made a statement in good faith for the protection of his interests, he should establish that every word he has spoken or written is literally true, though it is obvious that, according as it is more or less true or false, the question of his good faith or otherwise must be determined. If, having regard to certain facts and circumstances within his knowledge, he might, as all ordinarily reasonable and prudent man, have drawn the conclusions which he has expressed in defamatory language for the protection of his own interests, he may fairly be held to have made out his bonâ fides. This the Judge holds the defendant in the present suit to have done, and with his finding upon that head we see no ground to interfere. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.