and with gross ignorance and with gross and culpable want of caution and skill, and thus causing or accelerating her death.

5. In the alternative, the plaintiff says that the defendant meant thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of misconduct and negligence in his said profession and business, and had acted in his said profession and business negligently, injudiciously, indiscreetly and improperly, and had not done his duty by his patient, and was unfit to be employed as a medical man.

6. In consequence of the defendant's words the plaintiff has been and is greatly prejudiced and injured in his credit and reputation, and in his said profession and business of surgeon and general medical practitioner.

The plaintiff claims, &c.

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

No. 13.

Slander of a Solicitor-Injunction.

1. The plaintiff is a solicitor carrying on business at

He

had before the utterance of the slander hereinafter mentioned been retained and employed by the defendant to act for him as his solicitor in an action which the defendant lost.

2. On the 1st day of April 1884 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff in relation to his profession as a solicitor the words following:-. . . . 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. Whereby the plaintiff has been greatly injured in his credit and reputation, and in his profession as a solicitor.

And the plaintiff claims :

(1.) £500 damages.

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

No. 14.

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

1. The plaintiff is and at the times hereinafter mentioned was a baker, carrying on business at in the county of

day of

2. On or about the 1886 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff in the way of his trade and in relation to his conduct therein, the words following, that is to say:-[here set out the slander verbatim]; meaning thereby that the plaintiff cheated or was guilty of fraudulent, corrupt and dishonest practices in his said business.

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 trade, and X., Y. and Z., who had heretofore dealt with the plaintiff in his said trade, ceased to deal with him. The plaintiff claims £.

No. 15.

Another Form.

1. The plaintiff is a grocer carrying on business at Coventry, and has suffered damage by the defendant falsely and maliciously speaking and publishing of him in relation to his said business the following words, that is to say :

(a) "The big grocer has failed." These words were spoken by the defendant to Mrs. E. B. of C Street, Leamington, on or about the 30th of May 1883. Mrs. B. asked “Whom do you mean by 'the big grocer?"" The defendant replied "I mean Mr. L. of Coventry (the plaintiff): a commercial traveller told me in my office that he had failed.” (b) "Mr. L. is in Queer Street, and everybody knows it." These words were spoken by the defendant to Mr. C. B. of Coventry, accountant, on June 7th 1883; and to several commercial travellers, and especially to Mr. John Brown who travels for the wholesale house of Candy & Co.

2. The defendant thereby meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was insolvent, and was unable to meet his liabilities, and had filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court for liquidation of his affairs by arrangement or composition with his creditors.

Particulars of Special Damages.

(a) In consequence of the defendant's above-mentioned statement to Mr. John Brown, Messrs. Candy & Co. who had previously supplied the plaintiff with goods on credit, refused to sell any more goods to the plaintiff on credit, as they otherwise would have done.

(1) Since the said slanders were uttered, and in consequence thereof, there has been a general decline in the plaintiff's business and a considerable loss of profit to him.

Words imputing Insolvency.-Special Damage.

"1. The plaintiff is a private gentleman owning lands in Shropshire. The defendant is a solicitor carrying on business at Shrewsbury.

"2. Between the 13th of November 1886 and the 31st of January 1887 the defendant has repeatedly spoken and published of the plaintiff falsely and maliciously, and with the deliberate intention of injuring and annoying the plaintiff, and causing his creditors to press for immediate payment of their debts, the words following: 'Mr. X. (meaning the plaintiff) is insolvent. He owes money right and left. He cannot face his creditors. He is leaving the county 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."

"3. The plaintiff has thereby been greatly injured in his credit and reputation, and has also suffered special damage, whereof the following are the particulars :

"(a.) In consequence of what the defendant said to him, one George Morris pressed the plaintiff for payment of the sum of £40 before the agreed period of credit had expired, and has issued a writ against the plaintiff for that amount, which he would not otherwise have done.

"(b.) In consequence of what the defendant said to them, the directors of the Shropshire Banking Company applied to the plaintiff for the sum of £250 for which he was a surety to them for one A. B., and required the immediate payment thereof, which they would not otherwise have done.

"(c.) Mrs. Ann Graham was induced by what the defendant said to call in the sum of £350 secured to her by an indenture of mortgage dated the 18th day of July 1884, and made between her and the plaintiff, and to threaten in default of payment to exercise the power of sale contained in the said indenture, which she otherwise would not have done.

"And the plaintiff claims £500 damages.'

No. 17.

Words not actionable without proof of Special Damage.

CHAMBERLAIN v. BOYD.

"1. In the month of May last the plaintiff and his brother, Mr. W. C., were candidates for membership of the Reform Club. The defendant was a member of the said club.

"2. Upon a ballot of the members of the said club the plaintiff and his brother were not elected to membership.

"3. Subsequently to the said ballot a meeting of the members of the said club was called to consider a proposed alteration of the rules regulating the election of members, and the defendant took an active and personal interest in the matter.

"4. With a view to retain the regulations as they then existed, and to secure the exclusion of the plaintiff from membership of the said club, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, together with his said brother, the words following, that is to say:-[words not actionable per se] meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of conduct which unfitted him for membership of the Reform or any similar club.

"5. By reason of the said defamatory publications the defendant induced, or contributed to inducing, a majority of the members of the said club to retain the regulations under which the plaintiff had been rejected, and thereby prevented the plaintiff from again seeking to be elected to the said club. The plaintiff thus lost the advantage which he would have derived from again becoming a candidate with the chance of being elected, and the plaintiff suffered in his reputation and credit.*

"The plaintiff claims £5,000 damages.'

* The special damage here alleged was held too remote in the Court of Appeal, 11 Q. B. D. 407; 52 L. J. Q. B. 277; 31 W. R. 572; 48 L. T. 328; 47 J. P. 372.

No. 18.

Action by Husband and Wife for Slander of the Wife.

"1. The plaintiff George is a licensed victualler, and keeps the "White Horse Inn" at; the plaintiff Elizabeth is his wife, and assists him in the business of the said inn.

"2. On the 15th day of January last the plaintiff Elizabeth was, in the absence of her husband, managing and superintending the said business at the said inn, when the defendant came into the said inn and asked her to serve him with drink, which she refused to do on the ground that he had already had enough.

"3. Thereupon the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff Elizabeth, and in relation to her as managing and superintending the said business as aforesaid, and in the hearing of several customers of the said inn, the words following, that is to say:

Meaning thereby that the plaintiff Elizabeth was an immoral character, and was living in adultery, and was unfit to have the management and superintendence of the said business.

"4. By reason of the premises the plaintiff George was injured in his said business, and the plaintiff Elizabeth was injured in her character and reputation.

Particulars of special damage suffered by the plaintiff George. ].

[

"Each of the plaintiffs claims £50 damages."

No. 19.

Notice of Action.

[To be served a clear calendar month before action.]

in the said borough of

in the county

To A. B. Esq., Chief Constable of the Borough of I, C. D. of of according to the statute in that behalf, give you notice that I, the said C. D., will at or soon after the expiration of one calendar month from the time of your being served with this notice, cause a writ of summons to be sued out of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, by E. F. of

as