with reference to that trade or calling, the action may be CHAPTER VI. maintained (t). trade. Defamatory words, whether written or spoken, imputing to Libels of partners in trade that they carry on their business fraudu- Partners in lently and contrary to law, are actionable; and such partners may sue jointly (u). But in a joint action for a libel by two partners (bankers), damages cannot be recovered for any injury to their private feelings, but only for such injury as they may have sustained in their joint trade or business (x). A libel may be contained in a mercantile communication made. by one firm to another abroad, reflecting on the mode of business of a third party (y). And although the letter which forms the subject of the libel should not reach the person to whom it is addressed, that is no answer to an action for a libel contained in such letter, at the suit of the person libelled (z). An action may be maintained for a libel on an insurance Libel on a Company. company, as a libel on the partnership in the way of its business, by attacking the mode in which that business is conducted; or by imputation that the company are in the practice of holding forth to the public, hopes that are never meant to be realized (a). And a joint-stock company duly incorporated, may maintain an action for libel against a shareholder of the company (b). water to a A publication in a newspaper, conveying an imputation on Imputation of a provision merchant of supplying bad and unwholesome supplying bad water to a ship, whereby the passengers were made ill, is ship : libellous (c). So also an imputation on the keeper of a house of public entertainment, that his licence for music and dancing has been refused by the magistrates (d). But it has been held, on demurrer, to be no libel to write and publish of a physician (in a newspaper) that he has met homœopathists in consultation; though it be alleged, that in the opinion of the profession, meeting homoeopathists in consultation (t) Foulger v. Newcomb, 36 L. J. Ex. 169; L. R. 2 Ex. 327; see Hunt v. Bell, 1 Bing. 1; Frisarri v. Clement, 3 Bing. 432. (u) Le Fanu v. Malcomson, 1 H. L. Ca. 637. (x) Haythorn and another v. Lawson, 3 Car. & P. 196, per Gaselee, J. (y) Ward and another v. Smith, 6 Bing. 749. (*) Clegg v. Laffer, 3 Moore & Sc. F.S. 728. (a) Williams v. Beaumont, 10 Bing. 269; 3 Moore & Sc. 722. (b) Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company v. Hawkins, 4 H. & N. 87; 28 L. J. Ex. 201. (c) Solomon v. Lawson, 8 Q. B. 823; 15 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 253. (d) Bignell v. Buzzard, 3 H. & N. 217; 27 L. J. Ex. 355. G CHAPTER VI. Would be a breach of professional etiquette, and injurious to the professional character, reputation, and practice of a physician (e). Quackery to an Libel on a Public Libel on a in relation tions. To impute to an optician, by advertisement in a newspaper, that he is "a licensed hawker, and a quack in spectacle secrets," is libellous (f). Where the defendant having engaged the plaintiff, a public vocalist, to sing at a concert, placed her name in an inferior position to that of other artistes on the programme of the concert; in an action of libel for the injury thereby done to her reputation, the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of the jury for the plaintiff (g). Where the plaintiff declared that he was gunsmith to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and that, it having been to his inven- inserted in the Craftsman newspaper that he had the honour to present His Royal Highness with a gun he had invented, of two feet six inches long, which would shoot as far as other guns a foot longer; the defendant published an advertisement that "Whereas there was an account in the Craftsman of John Harman, gunsmith, making guns of two feet six inches, to exceed any made by others of a foot longer (with whom it is supposed he is in fee); this is to advise all gentlemen to be cautious, the said gunsmith not daring to engage with any artist in town, nor ever did make such an experiment (except out of a leather-gun), as any gentleman may be satisfied of at the Cross-Guns in Long Acre." It was moved in arrest of judgment, that this was no libel; and that if one tradesman will pretend to be a greater artist than others, it is lawful for them to support their own credit in the same way; and the court held, that if the defendant had gone no farther than that, he would not have been chargeable; it might be lawful for other tradesmen to advertise that they made guns as good as he, but they ought not to say he is no artist, which they plainly did, by saying that he dared not engage with any artist, and by advising gentlemen to be cautious of him: that the law had always been very tender of the reputation of tradesmen, and therefore words spoken of them in the way of their trade would bear an action, which would not be actionable in the case of private persons and if bare words were so, it would be stronger in (e) Clay v. Roberts, Jur. (N. S.) 580. (f) Keyzor and another v. Newcomb, 1 F. & F. 559. (g) Russell v. Notcutt (1896), 12 Times L. R. 195. the case of a libel in a public newspaper, which is so CHAPTER VI. diffusive (h). Tradesmen in manufacture or vend. And publications falsely and maliciously disparaging articles Libels on and goods which a tradesman manufactures, or vends, are relation to the actionable if special damage ensues. But an imputation that goods they the goods of a tradesman are bad, is not actionable, if made bonâ fide and in truth. Nor is a public caution, inserted in a newspaper, imputing that a certain invention is different to what the inventor represents it to be; unless falsely and maliciously made (i). But if the imputation were against the plaintiff as a manufacturer, or a tradesman, to the effect that he is in the habit of manufacturing or selling goods which he knows to be worthless, or bad, it would be a libel upon him personally (k); and this case shows the distinction between an imputation on the goods of a tradesman, which is not actionable without special damage; and an imputation on the tradesman, personally, which may be actionable though no special damage be proved. rival traders modities of And accordingly no action will lie for an imputation Disparaging (whether by advertisement or otherwise) to the effect that the statements by commodities of a certain tradesman are of an inferior quality as to comto those of another; although the imputation be untrue and others. special damage be alleged (1). It has, however, been held on demurrer, that to print and publish of a tradesman, falsely and without lawful occasion, that the goods in which he trades are inferior in quality to similar goods in which his rivals trade, is actionable if special damage result (m). Where the jury found that the words complained of were not only a disparagement of the plaintiffs' goods, but were also defamatory of the plaintiffs in their business; and were published maliciously, the verdict of the jury was upheld (n). But a mere puffing, or statement, by a trader that his own goods are superior to those of another trader, even if untrue (h) Harman v. Delany, 2 Str. 898 ; 1 Barnardiston, 289 and 438; and see Jenner v. A'Becket, L. R. 7 Q. B. 11. (i) It has been held in an American case, that fair and reasonable comments, however severe in terms, may be published in a newspaper concerning anything which is made, by its owner, a subject of public exhibition; and are privileged in the absence of actual malice. Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235; 23 Am. R. 322. (k) Evans v. Harlow, 5 Q. B. 624 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 120. (1) Young and others v. Macrae, 3 B. & S. 264; 32 L. J. Q. B. 6. (m) The Western Counties Manure Co. v. Lawes Chemical Manure Co., 43 L. J. Ex. 171; L. R. 9 Ex. 218. (n) Linotype Co. (Apps.) and British Empire Typesetting &c., Co. (Resps.), 15 T. L. R. 524 (H.L.) affirming judgment of C.A., and the ruling of Lord Russell, L.C.J., at Nisi Prius. CHAPTER VI. and the cause of loss to the other trader, gives no cause of action (o). But where there is proof of special damage traceable to a wrongful imputation upon the goods of a trader, and that imputation is made maliciously, a cause of action arises (p). Charge of foisting a fictitious article upon the public. On a Physician by falsely advertising In the absence of proof of special damage, malice of the defendant, and that the statements published are untrue, the action cannot be sustained (q). Where the defendants, who were manufacturers of cattle food, issued an advertisement in various newspapers, and a circular to their customers, warning them against the course pursued by the plaintiffs (who were also manufacturers of cattle food) "in seeking to foist upon the public an article which they pretend is the same as that manufactured by the late Joseph Thorley;" both advertisement and circular were held to be libels on the plaintiffs, in the way of their trade, and calculated to do them injury in their business, as imputing that they were foisting a fictitious article on the public (r). But where the plaintiff was the proprietor of a special food for infants, which he sold in bottles enclosed in wrappers bearing the words "Mellin's Infant's Food," the defendant, a chemist, was in the habit of selling the plaintiff's food to the public, but being himself the proprietor of another food called "Dr. Vance's Food for Infants and Invalids," he pasted on to the wrappers of Mellin's food, labels asserting the superiority of Dr. Vance's food to all others. In an action for libel upon the plaintiff's goods and claiming an injunction; there being no proof that the statement was untrue and no evidence of special damage, it was held, that the action was not maintainable, and that no injunction should be granted (s). A physician may sue for an injury to his reputation by a vendor of quack medicines, advertising falsely and without the medicines as of permission of the physician, certain pills as having been prehis preparation pared by the latter (t). On an Author, by issuing a spurious edition of his work. So, too, an author may maintain an action, for injury to his (0) Hubbuck & Sons, Ltd. v. Wilkinson and others, C.A. (1899), 1 Q. B. 86. (p) Alcott v. Millar's Karri, &c. (1904), 21 T. L. R. 30; Lyne v. Nicholls (1906), T. L. R. 86, cor. Swinfen Eady, J. (g) Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Wright (1900), H. L. App. 18 Rep. Pat. Cas. 95. (r) Thorley's Cattle Food Co. V. Massam, 14 Ch. D. 763, 782. (8) White (App.) and Mellin (Resp.), (1895), Ap. Cas. 154; Lyne v. Nicholls (1906), T. L. R. 86, cor. Swinfen Eady, J. (t) Clark v. Freeman, 11 Beav. 117; but see Canham v. Jones, 2 V. & B. 218. reputation as a barrister-at-law and author of a law-work, CHAPTER VI. against the publisher of a new edition, containing errors and inaccuracies in law and reasoning; such new edition falsely purporting to have been edited by the author: and this too, although the publisher be the owner of the copyright (u). proprietors. A person may also be liable to an action for a libellous Libels on publication on the property of another; particularly where the Newspaper subject-matter of the libel is that by which the other obtains his livelihood: as in the case of a newspaper, by imputing that it is "the most vulgar, ignorant, and scurrilous journal ever published" and that "it is the lowest now in circulation; and we submit the fact to the consideration of advertisers." Lord Kenyon, C.J., ruled, that the latter words were actionable as affecting the sale of the paper, and the profits to be made by advertising (x). So too, an imputation on a rival newspaper, accusing the other of inserting spurious advertisements, is libellous of the proprietor (y). So also an imputation on a newspaper, that it had a column for the advertisements of quack-doctors and usurers; was held defamatory of the proprietors, and actionable without proof of special damage (2). And so also where the defendants published an article in their own newspaper referring to the plaintiff's newspaper as "The Evening Ananias" (a). libellers. As to the procedure against libellers.-The law allows of two Procedure principal means of redress against the publisher of a libel: against one by indictment or criminal information, the other a civil proceeding by action at law. or Criminal The proceeding by indictment, or by criminal information, By indictment is for the public offence: for every libel has a tendency to a Information. breach of the peace, by provoking the person libelled to break it; which offence is the same (in point of law) whether the matter contained be true or false (b); and until the year 1843, the defendant, on an indictment, or information, for publishing a libel, was not allowed to allege the truth of it by way of justification (c). But by the Libel Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vic. Ap. Cas. 284; 63 L. J. P. C. C. 105. (c) 5 Rep. 125, the 4th resolution in |