Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers, Ltd.
England and Wales Court of Appeal
[1929] 2 KB 331 (1929)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Mr. Cassidy was married to Mrs. Cassidy (plaintiff). Mr. Cassidy owned racehorses and spent a lot of time at racetracks. He claimed to be a general in the Mexican army, and he was also known to spend time with women other than his wife. A racing photographer took a picture of Mr. Cassidy with a woman who was not Mrs. Cassidy. Mr. Cassidy told the photographer he was engaged to marry the woman. The Daily Mirror Newspapers, Ltd. (the Daily) (defendant), in a newspaper it owned, published the photograph with a caption stating that Mr. Cassidy and the woman were engaged to be married. The newspaper was read by other women who know Mrs. Cassidy. Mrs. Cassidy sued the Daily for libel. At trial, Mrs. Cassidy’s acquaintances testified that they had interpreted the statement to mean that Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy were not actually married and that she had no legal right to take his name. They further testified that they had formed bad opinions of her as an immoral woman as a result. At trial, the Daily objected that the words were not capable of a defamatory meaning. The judge overruled the objection, and the jury found for Mrs. Cassidy. The Daily appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scrutton, J.)
Concurrence (Russell, J.)
Dissent (Greer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.