and displayed ignorance of his duties; and this notwithstanding the public nature of the offices he held. Parmiter v. Coupland, 6 M. & W. 105; 9 L. J. Ex. 202; 4 Jur. 701. The trustees of a charity can sue jointly for a libellous letter published in a newspaper imputing to them, as a body, improper management of the charity funds. Booth v. Briscoe, 2 Q. B. D. 496; 25 W. R. 838. It is libellous to charge an overseer of a parish with "oppressive conduct" towards the paupers. Woodard v. Dowsing, 2 M. & Ry. 74. A placard stating of a certain overseer that when out of office he advocated low rates, when in office he advocated high rates, and that the defendant would not trust him with 57. of his property, is a libel. Cheese v. Scales, 10 M. & W. 488; 12 L. J. Ex. 13. It is libellous to accuse a vestry clerk of having in any way misapplied the money of the parish. May v. Brown, 3 B. & C. 113. It is libellous to charge a guardian of the poor with having been during the preceding year "a great defaulter" in his account. Warman v. Hine, 1 Jur. 820; 1 J. P. 346. It is libellous to charge the clerk to the justices of a borough with corruption. Blagg v. Sturt, 10 Q. B. 899; 16 L. J. Q. B. 39; 11 Jur. 101. Professions. It is libellous to impute to a member of any profession, that he does not possess the skill or the technical knowledge necessary for the proper practice of such profession, or that he has been guilty of any discreditable conduct in his profession. Illustrations. Clergymen and Ministers. It is libellous to write and publish of a Protestant archbishop that he attempted to convert a Catholic priest by offers of money and of preferment in the Church of England and Ireland. Archbishop of Tuam v. Robeson and another, 5 Bing. 17; 2 M. & P. 32. It is libellous to write and publish of a clergymen that he came to the performance of divine service in a towering passion, and that his conduct is calculated to make infidels of his congregation. Walker v. Brogden, 19 C. B. N. S. 65; 11 Jur. N. S. 671; 13 W. R. 809; 12 L. T. 495. Gathercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 319; 15 L. J. Ex. 179; 10 Jur. 337. But see Kelly v. Tinling, L. R. 1 Q. B. 699; 35 L. J. Q. B. 231; 12 Jur. N. S. 940; 14 W. R. 51; 13 L. T. 255. It is libellous to write and publish of a dissenting minister :- "A serious misunderstanding has recently taken place amongst the Independent Dissenters of Great Marlow and their pastor, in consequence of some personal invectives publicly thrown from the pulpit by the latter against a young lady of distinguished merit and spotless reputation. We understand, however, that the matter is to be taken up seriously.-Bucks Chronicle." Edwards v. Bell and others, 1 Bing. 403. As to a Roman Catholic priest, see Hearne v. Stowell, 12 A. & E. 719; 4 P. & D. 696; 6 Jur. 458. Medical Men. To advertise falsely that certain quack medicines were prepared by a physician of eminence is a libel upon such physician. Clark v. Freeman, 11 Beav. 112; 17 L. J. Ch. 142; 12 Jur. 149. It is libellous to describe a medical practitioner in print as "the Harley Street Quack, Physician Extraordinary to several ladies of distinction." Long v. Chubb, 5 C. & P. 55. Wells v. Webber, 2 F. & F. 715. Hunter v. Sharpe, 4 F. & F. 983; 15 L. T. 421; 30 J. P. 149. But it is no libel to write and publish of a physician that he has met homoeopathists in consultation; although it be averred in the declaration that to do so would be a breach of professional etiquette. Clay v. Roberts, 9 Jur. N. S. 580; 11 W. R. 649; 8 L. T. 397. Where the name of a doctor had been used without his consent in an advertisement of a patent medicine the Court declined to interfere. Dockrell v. Dougall, 78 L. T. 840; 80 L. T. 556. Barristers. To write and publish of a barrister that he is "a quack lawyer and a mountebank" and "an impostor," is actionable. Wakley v. Healey, 7 C. B. 591; 18 L. J. C. P. 241. Sir W. Garrow's Case, 3 Chit. Crim. L. 884. Solicitors. It is libellous to compare the conduct of an attorney in a particular case to that of the celebrated firm of Quirk, Gammon and Snap in "Ten Thousand a Year." Woodgate v. Ridout, 4 F. & F. 202. It is actionable to write and publish of a solicitor that he had been " severely reprimanded by one of the Masters of the Queen's Bench for what is called sharp practice in his profession." Boydell v. Jones, (1838) 4 M. & W. 446; 7 Dowl. 210. A correct report in the Observer of certain legal proceedings was headed "Shameful conduct of an attorney." Held, that the heading was a libel, even though all that followed was protected. Clement v. Lewis, 3 Br. & Bing. 297; 3 B. & Ald. 702; 7 Moore, 200. An information was granted for these words written to the mayor of Richmond :-"I am sure you will not be persuaded from doing justice by any little arts of your town clerk, whose consummate malice and wickedness against me and my family will make him do anything, be it ever so vile." R. v. Waite, (1743) 1 Wils. 22. Cory v. Bond, 2 F. & F. 241. Words complained of :-"If you will be misled by an attorney, who only considers his own interest, you will have to repent it: you may think, when you have once ordered your attorney to write to Mr. Giles, he would not do any more without your further orders, but if you once set him about it, he will go to any length without further orders." Held, a libel on the attorney who had been employed to write to Mr. Giles. Godson v. Home, 1 Br. & Bing. 7; 3 Moore, 223. The libel complained of was headed-“How Lawyer B. treats his clients," followed by a report of a particular case in which one client of Lawyer B.'s had been badly treated. That particular case was proved to be correctly reported, but this was held insufficient to justify the heading, which implied that Lawyer B. generally treated his clients badly. Bishop v. Latimer, 4 L. T. 775. Libel complained of, that the plaintiff, a proctor, had three times been suspended from practice for extortion. Proof that he had once been so suspended was held insufficient. Clarkson v. Lawson, 6 Bing. 266, 587; 3 M. & P. 605; 4 M. & P. 356. It is libellous to impute to a solicitor "disgraceful conduct" in having at an election disclosed confidential communications made to him professionally. Moore v. Terrell and others, 4 B. & Ad. 870; 1 N. & M. 559. But it is not a libel to say of a solicitor that he was admitted in 1879, when he was admitted in 1869. Raven v. Stevens and Sons, (1886) 3 Times L. R. 67. Singers and Actors. It is libellous to write and publish of an actress and singer that her performance was "the only touch of vulgarity" in a variety entertainment in which she appeared, and that a song sung by her was "written in gross bad taste," which was not redeemed by her manner of dancing. Cooney v. Edereain, (1897) 14 Times L. R. 34. It has been held to be libellous to publish a programme in which the names of the singers at a concert are arranged in such an order that the plaintiff's name does not occupy a position worthy of her professional reputation. Russell v. Notcutt, (1896) 12 Times L. R. 195. It is a libel to write and publish of an actor that it would be conferring a benefit on the public to induce him to return to "his old profession, that of a waiter," when in fact he never had been a waiter. Duplany v. Davis, (1886) 3 Times L. R. 184. It is a libel on an actress, in the way of her profession, to print and publish words that imply that she is at least ten years older than she really is. Chattell v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., Ld., (1901) 18 Times L. R. p. 167. The plaintiffs were vocalists, who advertised that certain publishers had given them permission "to sing any morceaux from their musical publications." The defendant wrote to the proprietors of certain music halls, at which the plaintiffs were engaged to sing, stating that the advertisement was calculated to lead proprietors to incur penalties under the Copyright Act, as he held the power of attorney over the performing rights of certain publications belonging to two of the publishers specified in the advertisement, and that one of these firms had informed him that they had granted no such permission as that claimed by the plaintiffs. Held, that the words were capable of a libellous meaning, and that the case was one for a jury. Hart and another v. Wall, (1877) 2 C. P. D. 146; 46 L. J. C. P. 227 ; 25 W. R. 373. As to publishing the name of a professional musician in a "black list," see Newton v. Amalgamated Musicians' Union, (1896) 12 Times L. R. 623, post, 403. Authors. To write and publish falsely that the plaintiff edited the third edition of a law book is actionable, if the book is proved to be full of inaccuracies which would seriously prejudice the plaintiff's reputation. Archbold v. Sweet, 1 Moo. & Rob. 162; 5 C. & P. 219. Cf. Manton and others v. Bales, (1845) 1 C. B. 444. So to represent that the plaintiff is the author of a mutilated edition of a portion of his book may be a libel on him. Lee v. Gibbings, (1892) 67 L. T. 263. Seeley v. Fisher, (1841) 11 Sim. 581. To write and publish falsely that the plaintiff is the author of a play, the plot of which turns on adultery, is a libel on him; it is not a fair comment on his play. Merivale and wife v. Carson, 20 Q. B. D. 275; 36 W. R. 231; 58 L. T. 331; 52 J. P. 261. Journalists. It is libellous to impute to the editor and proprietor of a newspaper that in advocating the sacred cause of the dissemination of Christianity among the Chinese, he was an impostor, anxious only to put money into his own pocket by extending the circulation of his paper; and that he had published a fictitious subscription list with a view to induce people to contribute. Campbell v. Spottiswoode, 3 B. & S. 769; 32 L. J. Q. B. 185; 9 Jur. It is libellous to call the editor of a newspaper a libellous journalist." It is a libel on the war-correspondent of a newspaper to accuse him of intriguing with private soldiers against their officers in a manner "destructive of all discipline." Williams v. Beresford-Hope, (1886) 3 Times L. R. 20. The plaintiff was a physician and the editor of a periodical called The London Medical and Physical Journal. The defendant published words tending to cast ridicule on the plaintiff as an editor, which, the defendant alleged, referred to the plaintiff only as an author. Held, that if the jury thought the words were not a fair comment, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Macleod v. Wakley, 3 C. & P. 311. Newspaper Proprietors. It is a libel on the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper to say that its advertisement columns are swollen with advertisements copied from other newspapers without any order for their insertion. Latimer v. Western Morning News Co., 25 L. T. 44. It is libellous to write and publish that a newspaper has a separate page devoted to the advertisements of usurers and quack doctors, and that the editor takes respectable advertisements at a cheaper rate if the advertisers will consent to their appearing in that page. Russell and another v. Webster, 23 W. R. 59. It is not libellous for one newspaper to call another "the most vulgar, ignorant and scurrilous journal ever published in Great Britain; " but it is libellous to add, "it is the lowest now in circulation; and we submit the fact to the consideration of advertisers; " for that affects the sale of the paper and the profits to be made by advertising. (Lord Kenyon, C.J.) Heriot v. Stuart, 1 Esp. 437. It is a libel to write of the owner of a newspaper that he endeavours to grind down his workmen by improperly reducing their wages, that his newspaper is almost defunct, and that the greater part of the advertisements in the newspaper are fictitious. Harrison v. Pearce, 32 L. T. (Old S.) 298; 1 F. & F. 567. "No doubt offensive language applied to a newspaper may cast a reflection, and be understood as casting a reflection, upon persons connected with the newspaper. But it clearly cannot be maintained that every imputation upon a newspaper is a personal imputation upon everybody connected with the newspaper. Whether it is an imputation which would attach to any individual, and, if so, to whom, must depend in each case upon the language used and upon the circumstances." Per Lord Herschell, L.C., in Australian Newspaper Co., Limited v. Bennett, (1894) A. C. at p. 288; 63 L. J. P. C. 105; 70 L. T. 597 ; 58 J. P. 604; 6 R. 484. Other Professions. It is libellous to impute to a certificated master mariner drunkenness when in charge of his ship, or other misconduct or incapacity in the management of his ship, or that he is an habitual drunkard. Harwood v. Green, 3 C. & P. 141. Coxhead v. Richards, 2 C. B. 569; 15 L. J. C. P. 278; 10 Jur. 984. It is a libel on an architect to print and publish of him that his plans are worthless. Henwood v. Harrison, L. R. 7 C. P. 606, 628; 41 L. J. C. P. 206; 20 Where an architect is engaged to execute certain work, it is a libel upon him in the way of his profession to write to his employers asserting that he has no experience in that particular kind of work, and is therefore unfit to be entrusted with it. Botterill and another v. Whytehead, 41 L. T. 588. It is libellous to write and publish of a quantity surveyor that there are great errors in the quantities taken out by him. Sadgrove v. Hole, (1901) 2 K. B. 1; 70 L. J. K. B. 455; 49 W. R. 473; 84 L. T. 647. Where two architects designed certain public buildings, and one of them published pictures of the buildings, saying that they were designed by himself, without any reference to his fellow architect, it was held that the omission of the plaintiff's name did not constitute a libel on him. Green v. Archer, (1891) 7 Times L. R. 542. |