In a criminal prosecution for libel, “it is not necessary, as in the case of a civil action, that there should be publication in the sense of a communication by the defendant of the words complained of to some third party--it is sufficient if the words complained of be communicated by the defendant to the prosecutor himself, provided that their natural tendency is to provoke the prosecutor and excite him to commit a breach of the peace.” It is interesting to note that in printed libels, _i.e._, in newspapers, books, etc., there is “a _primâ facie_ case of publication against the defendant where the manuscript from which the libel was printed is shown to be in his handwriting, there being no necessity to prove that he expressly ordered or authorized the printing.” The defendant was “held liable where the plaintiff told some friends an absurd story about himself, and the defendant published it in his newspaper, simply for the purpose of amusing his readers, and believing that the plaintiff would not object.” “The proprietors of a newspaper sued jointly with his negligent editor and the author of the libel cannot obtain compensation from either of them in respect of the damages which he has been obliged to pay to the plaintiff; nor will the fact that there has been an express promise to indemnify him if he will publish the libel in any may improve his position, for such a promise is void, the consideration for it being illegal. A printer cannot maintain an action for his charges for printing a libel; and if he agrees to print a book for a certain price, and finds in the course of his work that the book contains libellous matter, he may refuse to proceed, and can sue for that part of the work which is not libellous in an action for work and labour performed, and materials provided.” “Where the libel has appeared in a newspaper, difficulty is often met with in attempting to ascertain the author of the libel, for an editor will not, as a rule, give this information, nor is he bound to do so. ‘When a man went to an editor to ask for the name of an anonymous correspondent, no blame attached to the editor for refusing to give the name. Indeed, an editor would be almost mad to do so. I should blame no editor for so refusing.’”--Baron Martin, cited in Fraser’s _Libel and Slander_. The majority of the foregoing paragraphs have been taken from Mr. Fraser’s work, and, though they are submitted in a somewhat fragmentary state, their interest is of a sufficiently general character, perhaps, to warrant their inclusion here.