been given for the defendant below, the plaintiff carried the CHAPTER VI. matter, by writ of error, into the Court of King's Bench, where the same causes were assigned for error, which before had been alleged as grounds of special demurrer. The defendant further contended, that the declaration was insufficient, as the words "common informer" were not actionable, and the term "swindler was not a legal term of which the law could take notice. But Buller, J., observed, "The objection afterwards taken to the declaration is, that the term 'swindler' is too general, and cannot be legally understood, but Mr. Justice Aston formerly held otherwise, for he said that the word 'swindler' was in general use, and that the court could not say they were ignorant of it. But at all events we cannot say upon this record, that we do not understand the import of it, for it is explained to be 'defrauding divers persons.' The declaration contains as libellous a charge as can well be imagined." nected with A society had been formed called "The Society for the Imputation of protection of Trade against Swindlers and Sharpers." By its being conrules all fair traders were admissible. The secretary sent swindlers. round a circular to the members, in which he stated, that the plaintiff (and two other persons whom he named) were reported to that society as improper to be proposed to be ballotted for as members thereof. It was proved that the circular was understood to import that the plaintiff was connected with swindlers. It was ruled by Lord Tenterden, C.J., that, without the slightest doubt, such a publication was libellous, however cautiously worded; and that no proof of special damage was necessary (l). But on motion in arrest of judgment, it was held, that the matter charged as libellous was not sufficiently connected with the introductory matter, and that without such matter the words were not in themselves actionable (m). But the court observed, that had they been so connected, there could be no doubt that the action would have been maintainable. cards. An imputation of cheating at cards, though conveyed Cheating at in an indirect manner, and published in a newspaper, is libellous (n). (1) Goldstein v. Foss and another, 2 C. & P. 252. (m) Ibid. 6 B. & C. 154, affirmed in Ex. Cham. 4 Bing. 489. It will be observed that this is one of those cases prior to the C. L. P. Act, in which (n) Digby v. Thompson and another, CHAPTER VI. To write and publish of a person who sought admission to a 'Black-balled.' club, that he was "black-balled," and "bolted" next morning Notice of exclusion from without paying the debts contracted by him with divers persons, is libellous (o). But to say that a person "quitted" the neighbourhood leaving divers of the tradesmen to whom he owed money unpaid, would not be so (p). And where the defendants posted up in a public room, the following notice"The Rev. J. Robinson (the plaintiff) and Mr. J. K., inhabia public room. tants of this town, not being persons that the proprietors or annual subscribers think it proper to associate with, are excluded this room"; it was held, that the publication was not actionable, on the ground that it did not represent the plaintiff as an improper person for general society, but merely asserted the opinion of certain parties (q). Imputation that, not a proper person to be entertained in society. Master wrong upon Cab Where, in an indictment containing several counts for libels on the Duke of B., published in The Satirist newspaper; the libel alleged in the 8th count was:-" Why should Theophilus be surprised at anything Mrs. W. of Connaught Place does? If she chooses to entertain the Duke of B., she does what very few will do; and she is of course at liberty to follow the bent of her own inclining, by inviting all the expatriated foreigners who crowd our streets to her table, if she thinks fit." It was held, by a large majority of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that the matter complained of in the 8th count was libellous, as it might be understood in such a sense as to be injurious to the prosecutor's character (r). And it has been held, that an action lies by a cab-driver fully writing against his master for wrongfully and unjustly defacing his drivers' licence. licence as a driver (granted to him under the statute 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86, s. 21) by writing upon it that he was not a fit and proper person to act as driver of a hackney carriage (s). For an employer cannot adjudicate on his own complaint, by writing upon the licence that which the Act of Parliament authorises the justice alone to indorse. The like upon an Omnibus Conductor's licence. And where it was alleged that the defendant, who employed the plaintiff as conductor of a metropolitan stage carriage, wrongfully and maliciously wrote upon the plaintiff's licence, "Discharged for being 1s. 4d. short"; whereby he was prevented from obtaining employment: it was held, on demurrer, (0) O'Brien v. Clement, 16 M. & W. (r) Gregory v. The Queen, 15 Q. B. 159. 973. (p) Ibid. 168. (q) Robinson v. Jermyn and another, 1 Price, 11. (s) Hurrell v. Ellis, 2 C. B. 295; and see Taylor v. Rowan, 1 Moo. & Rob. 490. that the declaration disclosed a good cause of action; and a plea professing to justify the act on the ground of truth, and that the plaintiff had defrauded the defendant, was held no justification (t). CHAPTER VI. to Trader's business. And where the plaintiff sued the defendant for the publica- Publication in tion, in a newspaper, of a falsehood respecting the plaintiff's newspaper of falsehood probusiness; the statement was not in itself defamatory and not ducing damage actionable as a personal libel; but the plaintiff proved a general loss of business as the direct and natural consequence of the publication; and it was held, that the action was maintainable: and that, in an action for falsehood such as in its very nature is intended or reasonably likely to produce damage to a man's trade, and which in the ordinary course of things does produce a general loss of business, as distinct from the loss of this or that known customer, evidence of such general decline of business is admissible in support of the action (u). To write and publish of another, that he is a "black-sheep" "Black-sheep.' or a "black-leg," is libellous (x). So also to impute to a 'Black-leg.' newspaper proprietor, that, in putting forth to the public, in his newspaper, the dissemination of religious truth among the heathen, he was acting as an impostor, and that his purpose 'Impostor.' was to put money into his own pocket by obtaining contributions to his newspaper (y). And so also to impute to a person that, with a view to induce others to contribute towards a professed cause, he published a fictitious subscription list (z). So also to charge a recipient with the improper use of benevolent contributions (a). So also to charge a person with Imputation of circulating circulating abusive circulars because such a charge carries with abusive it a certain amount of damage to a person's character (b). Circulars. A statement in writing, that a person's mind is affected, is Insanity. prima facie a libel (c). Where a letter was addressed to the clerk to the guardians Other imputations tending of a Poor Law Union, as to an allowance by such guardians, to disparage towards the maintenance of a female pauper, expressing doubts character. as to the poverty of such pauper, and imputing that the plaintiff, the daughter of such pauper, was able to contribute towards her mother's maintenance; that she was "a lady of (t) Rogers v. Macnamara, 14 C. B. 27. (u) Ratcliffe v. Evans (1892), 2 Q. B. 524; 61 L. J. 535. (x) McGregor v. Gregory, 11 M. & W. 287. (y) Campbell v. Spottiswoode, 3 B. & S. 769; 32 L. J. Q. B. 185. (2) Ibid. 3 B. & S. 776. (a) Houre v. Silverlock, 17 L. J. Q. B. 308. (b) Ibid. 12 Q. B. 624. (c) Morgan v. Lingen, 8 L. T. N. S. 800. CHAPTER VI. independence and a single woman, and could find money for carrying on all sorts of law proceedings." "That she had for years, without the slightest cause, systematically done everything she could to annoy the defendant" (her sister). "That the plaintiff and her mother had some years ago dragged her into Chancery, and compelled her, almost every term, to appear by counsel before the Vice-Chancellor. That they had no business to include her in the bill; but that it was a pleasure to them to put the defendant to all the expense they could;" it was held, on demurrer, that the publication of such letter tended to disparage the plaintiff's character, and was therefore libellous (d). Charge of Of having been in pecuniary difficulties. 'Man of Straw.' Of religious intolerance. Fraud in A charge of ingratitude, published in a newspaper, is libellous; and, notwithstanding that facts be stated as the ground of the charge which do not support it, it is still a question for the jury, whether the words were used under such circumstances as to make them libellous (e). An untrue statement, published in a newspaper, that a person was at a past time in pecuniary difficulties, may be libellous, although it is also stated that those difficulties have been surmounted (f). To write and publish of another that he is a "man of straw," is libellous, when taken in connection with other parts of the communication showing an intention on the part of the writer to convey an imputation of insolvent circumstances (g). Where a letter, published in a newspaper, imputed to the plaintiff, a Presbyterian in religion, gross intolerance in refusing the use of his hearse for the funeral of his deceased servant, because the body was to be interred in a Roman Catholic burying ground; it was held, on demurrer, by the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, that the Court could not so clearly see that the letter could not in any view be libellous, as to justify them in withdrawing the case from a jury (h). To impute fraudulent conduct to another in horse-racing and horse-racing. betting transactions, is libellous; and this whether or not the Of poisoning transactions are strictly legal (i). To impute to another in a newspaper (through the editor) that he has poisoned foxes Foxes. (d) Fray v. Fray, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 603; 34 L. J. C. P. 45. (e) Cox v. Lee, L. R. 4 Ex. 284; 38 L. J. Ex. 219. (f) Ibid. per Kelly, C.B. (g) Eaton v. Johns, 1 Dowl. P. C. (N. S.) 602. (h) Teary v. M'Kenna, Ir. R. 4 C. L. 374. (i) Greville v. Chapman and others, 5 Q. B. 731; 13 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 172 and see Wood V. Durham, infra. in a county in which fox-hounds are kept, and has been hung CHAPTER VI. in effigy for so doing, has been held libellous (k). of ridicule. So also to publish in a newspaper, a story calculated to Libel by story bring a person into public ridicule, although such person may have previously told the story of himself (l). Libel of husband by imputation of cruelty to wife. &c., on a deceased lady. It is a libel to publish in a newspaper, of a married man, that his conduct towards his wife was so cruel that she was compelled to resort to a Criminal Court for protection (m). Imputations of unchastity and immorality, when published Libel by in writing, are libels (n). In general any charge of immoral imputation of immorality, conduct published in writing is a libel (0). And damages to unchastity, the amount of £2,000 were recovered in an action against the proprietor of a newspaper, for a libel upon a married lady, wherein she was accused of criminal connexion with a naval commander abroad (p). And where a statement was published in a newspaper, as a "rumour," of a married lady, that she or adultery; had committed adultery; the court granted a criminal information against the publisher of the newspaper (q). And so also, for a libel on a deceased lady, the wife of a baronet, imputing adultery to her with one of her menial servants (/). If matter defamatory of a living person be published, by Libel on an casting reflections on the conduct of his deceased father, militia, by imputing fraud and dishonesty in the public offices he held, and reflections on that out of the proceeds of that fraud the son was enabled to father. become a colonel of militia, such may be a libel on the son; and he has a right to take the opinion of a jury upon it (s). A man may be as successfully exposed to ridicule by a Libel by Piccaricature painting or drawing, as by any written misrepre- Caricatures. sentation; and the object of the defendant may be as clearly manifested in the latter as in the former. The difficulty, indeed, of proving the plaintiff to be the person aimed at, may, in some instances, be greater in the latter case; but when the doubt as to the defendant's application of the calumny has been (k) Reg. v. Cooper, 8 Q. B. 533; 15 L. J. Q. B. 206. And see Foulger v. Newcomb, 36 L. J. Ex. 169. (1) Cook v. Ward, 6 Bing. 409. (m) Hakewell v. Ingram, 2 C. L. Rep. (1854), p. 1397. (n) Rex v. Benfield and another, 2 Burr. 980, 985. (0) 5 Bing. 21. (p) Webster and wife v. Baldwin, H. T. 1816, Com. Pl. N. P. And a case is mentioned in 3 Christ. Blac. 126, of a young lady recovering £4,000 (r) The King v. Weaver and others, (8) White v. Tyrrell, 5 Ir. C. L. R. 498, and vide infra, Criminal Division, Libels on the Dead. officer of his deceased tures and |