the following words :-" He is a regular smasher"; meaning thereby that the plaintiff had uttered, and was in the habit of uttering, counterfeit coin, well knowing it to be counterfeit, and had been guilty of an indictable offence.

The plaintiff claims damages.

No. 12.

Slander Imputing a Contagious Disorder-Special Damage. 1. The plaintiff is a married man, residing at wife.

with his

2. On March 3rd, 1903, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to one Frederick Hatton the following words: "I" (meaning the defendant) "hear L." (meaning the plaintiff) "has, &c."; thereby meaning that the plaintiff was suffering from a loathsome contagious disorder, and had communicated the same to his wife, and was unfit by reason of such disorder to be admitted into society.

3. By reason of the premises the plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation and brought into disgrace among his neighbours and friends, and has been deprived of, and ceased to receive their hospitality.*

The plaintiff claims damages.

*The plaintiff was ordered to give particulars of the names of the neighbours and friends whose hospitality he alleged he had lost, referred to in paragraph 3, but was unable to do so: thereupon the words in italics were struck out of his Statement of Claim, and the plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application and the amendment in any event. Such particulars should have been given in the Statement of Claim; the allegations struck out should not have been inserted if the plaintiff knew that he could not give the particulars.

No. 13.

Slander of a Clergyman.

1. The plaintiff is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a clergyman of the Church of England, a doctor of divinity and vicar of the parish of

2. It was the custom and the duty of the plaintiff as such vicar as aforesaid to constantly visit the parochial school in his said parish and to superintend the management thereof. Miss E. B. was at the time of the publication hereinafter complained of and is the mistress of the said school.

O.L.S.

Ꮓ Ꮓ

3. The defendant on the 25th day of April, 1880, falsely and maliciously spoke and published to one C. D. of the plaintiff in relation to his profession as a clergyman of the Church of England, and to his office as such vicar as aforesaid the following words :"Miss E. B." (meaning thereby the said schoolmistress), “&c. Meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of undue familiarity with the said Miss E. B., and had habitually been guilty of conduct unbecoming a clergyman of the Church of England, and had misconducted himself in his office as such vicar as aforesaid, and was unfit to continue in the same, or to hold any other preferment.

4. The plaintiff has thereby been greatly injured in his credit and reputation, and in his said profession as a clergyman of the Church of England and in his office as such vicar as aforesaid, and brought into public scandal, ridicule, and contempt. The plaintiff claims damages.

No. 14.

Slander of a Medical Man.

1. The plaintiff is a duly qualified surgeon and general medical practitioner, and carries on his profession in the city of and its neighbourhood.

2. On January 9th, 1895, the plaintiff was called in by the defendant to attend his infant daughter, who was then lying dangerously ill. On January 14th the said daughter died.

3. On January 17th, 1895, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to one C. D., of the plaintiff in relation to his said profession and his conduct therein, the following words:" Mr. E. (meaning the plaintiff) killed my child."

4. The said words mean, and were understood to mean, that the plaintiff had been guilty of feloniously killing the defendant's daughter by treating her negligently and improperly and with gross ignorance and culpable want of caution and skill, and thus causing or accelerating her death.

5. In the alternative, the plaintiff says that the said words mean, and were understood to mean, that the plaintiff had been guilty of misconduct and negligence in his said profession, and had acted in his said profession negligently and improperly, and had not done his duty by his patient, and was unfit to be employed as a medical

man.

6. The plaintiff has been much prejudiced by the defendant's words, and has been injured in his credit and reputation, and in his said profession of surgeon and general medical practitioner. [Here set out Particulars of Special Damage if any. See Precedents Nos. 9, 16 and 17.]

The plaintiff claims damages.

[See Edsall v. Russell, 4 M. & Gr. 1090; 12 L. J. C. P. 4.]

No. 15.

Slander of a Solicitor-Injunction.

In

1. The plaintiff is a solicitor carrying on business at the months of April and May, 1902, the plaintiff acted as solicitor for the defendant in an action brought by him against one X. Y. in the Blackburn County Court.

2. On June 1st, 1902, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published the following words to Messrs. C. D. and E. F., of the plaintiff in the way of his profession as a solicitor:-. . .; meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of dishonourable and unprofessional conduct in his practice as a solicitor, and that the said action had been lost through the culpable negligence or fraudulent malpractice of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had cheated and defrauded his client, the defendant, and would similarly cheat and defraud other clients.

3. The plaintiff has thereby been greatly injured in his credit and reputation, and in his profession as a solicitor.

And the plaintiff claims:

(1.) Damages.

(2.) An injunction to restrain the defendant from repeating the said slander, and from publishing any other slander injuriously affecting the plaintiff in his profession as a solicitor.*

*See note, ante, p. 700, as to form of injunction.

No. 16.

Slander of a Trader in the way of his Trade-Special Damage.

1. The plaintiff is a baker, carrying on business at county of

in the

2. On March 19th, 1903, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff in the way of his trade as a baker, the following words to Messrs. X., Y. and Z.:-[Here set out the slander verbatim]; meaning thereby that the plaintiff cheated or was guilty of fraudulent, corrupt and dishonest practices in his said trade.

3. In consequence of the said words the plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation as a baker and in his said business, and the said X., Y. and Z., who had previously dealt with the plaintiff, ceased to deal with him.

1. The plaintiff is an auctioneer and estate agent, carrying on business at Shrewsbury, in the county of Salop. The defendant is a solicitor.

2. On the 13th of January, 1897, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to A. B. of the plaintiff in the way of his business, the words following:-"Mr. X." (meaning the plaintiff) "is insolvent. He owes money right and left. He cannot face his creditors."

3. On the 31st of January, 1897, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to C. D. of the plaintiff in the way of his business, the words following:-"He" (meaning the plaintiff) "is leaving the town deeply in debt. Does he owe you any money? You must look sharp after it. He cannot pay. You had better let me issue a writ against him for the amount."

4. On various dates between the 13th of January, 1897, and the 31st of January, 1897, not more precisely known to the plaintiff, the defendant falsely and maliciously repeated of the plaintiff in the

way of his business the words set out in paragraph 2 or words to the same effect to E. F. and G. H. and to divers other persons whose names the plaintiff is unable to give at this stage of the action.*

5. By reason of the premises the plaintiff has suffered damage and has been injured in his credit and reputation, and has been pressed for payment of debts that he would not otherwise have been pressed to pay and has suffered a general loss of business.

(a) In consequence of what the defendant said to him A. B. pressed the plaintiff for payment of the sum of £100 before the agreed period of credit had expired, and on the 10th of March, 1897, issued a writ against the plaintiff for that amount, which he would not otherwise have done.†

(b) C. D. was induced by what the defendant said to him to call in by a letter dated the 11th of February, 1897, the sum of £350 secured to him by an indenture of mortgage dated the 18th of July, 1894, and made between him and the plaintiff, and by letters dated the 11th and 16th February, 1897, to threaten in default of payment to exercise the power of sale contained in the said indenture, which he otherwise would not have done.t

(c) In consequence of what the defendant said to E. F. and G. H. they verbally on the 20th of February, 1897, applied to the plaintiff for the sum of £250 for which he was a surety to them for one R. S., and required the immediate payment thereof, which they would not otherwise have done.t

* If such an allegation is put on the record, the Master will probably order that at a reasonable time, say three weeks, before the trial the plaintiff give particulars of the other persons to whom the slanders were uttered, and of the dates of publication, or that in default he be precluded from giving evidence thereof at the trial.

It may be doubted whether these are allegations of special damage; nevertheless, as the words alleged are actionable per se, they may be pleaded in aggravation.