What is the test for imputation in an action for slander?

Simmons v. Mitchell (1880) 6 App Cas 156, 50 LJPC 11, was an action for slander. It seems that the slander in that case was capable of two meanings, one suspicion and the other guilt. The plaintiff’s brother was asked on cross-examination how he regarded the imputation and he replied that of guilt. It was held by their Lordships that such a statement by a witness without any proof of the surrounding circumstances or conduct leading to the inference was not evidence upon which the jury would be justified in acting.

Dairies and Braddock v. Hartley (1848) 3 Ex 200, 154 ER 815, is referred to in the last case. The headnote is: “In an action for words spoken or written, the ordinary sense of those words is to be taken as the meaning of the speaker or writer, unless something be shown to have taken place which may give a peculiar character to the expressions used. In the absence of any such evidence, a witness cannot be asked the question, ‘What did you understand by the words?’ The proper course to be adopted is first to lay the foundation by giving such evidence, and then the question becomes admissible.”