-11result of the decisions in Emmens v Pottle20 in 1886 and Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Limited in 1900.21 25. It had previously been well-established that the sale of a newspaper which contained a libel constituted a publication of that libel.22 The defendants in Emmens v Pottle were newsvendors who were sued for libel on the basis of such a sale. However, the jury gave judgment for the defendant, finding that they did not know and had no reason to suppose that the newspaper sold contained or was likely to contain a libel. On the basis of such findings, Lord Esher MR concluded: “... the case is reduced to this, that the defendants were innocent disseminators of a thing which they were not bound to know was likely to contain a libel. That being so, I think the defendants are not liable for the libel.”23 26. That was a robust repudiation of the strictness of the traditional rule, his Lordship adding: “If they were liable, the result would be that every common carrier who carries a newspaper which contains a libel would be liable for it, even if the paper were one of which every man in England would say that it was not likely to contain a libel. To my mind the mere statement of such a result shews that the proposition from which it flows is unreasonable and unjust. The question does not depend on any statute, but on the common law, and, in my opinion, any proposition the result of which would be to shew that the Common Law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust, cannot be part of the Common Law of England. I think, therefore, that, upon the findings of the jury, the judgment for the defendants is right.”24 27. The elements of the defence are usually taken to be as stated in the judgment of Romer LJ in Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Limited,25 where his Lordship formulated the principles as follows: 20 (1886) 16 QBD 354. 21 [1900] 2 QB 170. 22 The Duke of Brunswick and Luneberg v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 184. 23 Emmens v Pottle (1886) 16 QBD 354 at 357. 24 At 357-358. 25 [1900] 2 QB 170 at 180.