The Law of the Land. ted by taking the corn and only an act of malicious trespass is imputed in the taking of the windows and neither were criminal offenses involving moral turpitude for which .the party may be indicted and punished. Never accuse one of stealing your pocket book. If you happen to be in a slanderous mood drop a hint that A is mean enough to steal windows and you will be safe from an swering for yonr words. Such words be sides are not likely to involve proof of special damage, unless it were that he would be criticised to his prejudice in overlooking tak ing the house with him when he was smart enough to steal the windows. Along the same line the words, " You have stolen hoop poles and saw logs from D's land " was not actionable, only a trespass being imputed. It would appear from the authorities that you can call a physician such a variety of pet names as you may see fit with impunity. You may call him " a quack " or a " two-penny bleeder," and the words are not actionable. He is so accustomed to being called names when he does not cure or when he refused to deceive the hypochondriacs with bread pills, that the law has doubtless come to the conclusion that it does not do him any harm, that some time or other all of us have to go to the doctor, no matter what some one else has said about him, hence his business gen erally speaking cannot be injured. Of all actions the rarest is one by a lawyer for a slander circulated about him. It is just possible that attorneys grow so accustomed to being slandered by each other during the progress of trials and at the end thereof shaking hands as though it had all been a huge joke, that they never know when they have been slandered in dead earnest. On such an occasion it is just the same old joke in a new form and rolls off like water off a duck's back. But when a lawyer puts on a little official dignity, look out. He will not stand the trifling he did when he was an or dinary squabbling attorney. To say that you don't want to sit as a juror before such a
527
damned fool of a justice may express your own feelings, but it has been held that such language is slanderous per se and would be sides be in contempt of court. Again, the words were held to be actionable in them selves to say of a judge that " he is a damned old rascal and has done that which will remove him from his seat." When you have lost your case and are angry at the court in con sequence it would be just as well for you that you do not say anything, for courts have tender solicitudes for the respect due them. Think it all out logically and concisely before you give expression thereto, and then don't say it at all. A curious slander case is one in which it was said of a candidate for Congress that "his mind was weak," and these words were held actionable in themselves as necessarily injurious to one seeking an election to such an office of public trust. To say the least, that was an exceedingly patriotic decision. Would it not be lots of fun to defend a few slanderers uttering similar language against some few nameless M. C.'s and by way of de fense plead justification and prove the truth of the spoken words? There is one profession one must speak of with care and respect. You might with impunity call your lawyer or your doctor a drunkard, and those who listened to such lan guage would, for some reason or other, think very little about it and the courts would say neither were injured by the words in them selves. If, however, you say of your pastor that he is a drunkard the words will be actionable in themselves. Such an accusa tion would in itself damage a preacher, injure him in character and in his business, to his great prejudice and probable loss of a charge. Where it was said of a minister that " he stayed at our house last night and was pretty devilish drunk; he made out to stagger up to the house. He was so drunk he could not find his key," the words were held to be actionable in themselves. This is not surprising, for a minister to be so intox
