Odger's English Common Law

524 DEFAMATION.
But any imputation of bankruptcy or insolvency, past,
present or imminent, will be held clearly to prejudice a
trader in the way of his trade.
Thus to say of a trader, " 'Ware hawk there ;
mind what you are about,"
was held actionable, as the plaintiff had pleaded proper averments, showing
that the words imputed insolvency. 1 So to say of a tradesman, " If he
does not come and make terms with me, I will make a bankrupt of him and
ruin him," must be prejudicial to him in his business ; for such words
necessarily imply that the defendant has the power to carry his threat into
effect, and this can only be the case if the plaintiff, though not yet made a
bankrupt, is in financial difficulties. 2
To verbally accuse a man of any immorality or of any
vicious and dishonourable (but not criminal) conduct, or even
of any fraud and dishonesty outside his profession or trade,
is, in the absence of any special damage, not actionable. 3
Words imputing to a man adultery, profligacy, immoral
conduct, &c, even though he hold an office or carry on a
profession or business, will not be actionable, unless they
relate to his conduct in that office, profession or business, or
otherwise affect him therein; the imputation must be con-
nected with the professional or business duties of the
plaintiff.
Thus, for verbally imputing incontinence to a clergyman no action will
lie, without averment and proof of actual damage, unless he is beneficed
or holds some clerical office or employment of temporal profit of which he
would be liable to be deprived if such words were true. 4 So to say of a
schoolmaster that he had committed adultery with a servant employed at
the school is not actionable without proof of special damage, as the impufca*
tion does not touch him in the way of his calling. 5 But to impute that a
master mariner was drunk when he was in command of a vessel is actionable
without any proof of special damage. 6
Any spoken words, however, which disparage the reputation
of another are actionable if they have produced any special
damage which flowed naturally from the slander. The law
regards as special damage any loss of money or money's
1 Orpwood v. Barhes (vel Parlies) (1827), 4 Bing. 261.
2 Brown v. Smith (1853), 13 C. B. 596.
3 See Odgers on Libel and Slander, 5th ed., p. 72.
* Galhoey v. Marshall (1853), 9 Exch. 294.
» Jones v. Jones, [1916] 2 A. C. 481.
« Hamon v. Falle (1879), 4 App. Cas. 247.