I was about to add before that interruption that if there were any danger it is really dealt with by the words in the last part of the Clause. They are:
… if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation
having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.
Therefore, when a judge or jury are discussing this matter, all the arguments can be put before them and, if there is material damage done, the plaintiff will have his remedy. Surely, however, it is not right that a plaintiff should be entitled to get damages when it is proved by way of justification that he is a rogue but, because of the failure to justify some small point, he is then entitled to obtain a verdict.