Shafer v. Ahalt

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In suits for slander, pecuniary loss to the ■ plaintiff is the gist of the action. Whether it was necessary at first, to prove in all cases such pecuniary loss, it is not now necessary to inquire. The Courts at an early time, recognized a distinction between words actionable, and ivords not actionable in themselves.

In the former, the law presumed. pecuniary loss, while in the latter, it was necessary in addition to the words, to prove special damage to the plaintiff. Whatever difficulty there may be in defining the precise line of demarcation between these actions, it is well settled, that where one charges another with the commission of an offence, it must be such an offence as subjects the party to corporal punishment, in order to render ,the words actionable per se. Now, adultery was a spiritual offence cognizable by the Spiritual Courts, and the punishment was confined to the infliction of penance, “pro salute animas.” And hence it was held, that to charge one with adultery, was not actionable per se, and in order to maintain the action, the plaintiff must prove special damage. In this State, adultery is punishable by a pecuniary fine, and to charge one with the commission of the offence is not therefore actionable per se.

This is a suit by the husband and wife to recover damages of the defendant for charging the plaintiff’s wife with adultery, and the question is, whether the sickness of the wife resulting from this slanderous charge is sufficient to prove special damage. In cases of this kind special damage is that which is naturally the consequence of the words spoken. Allsop and Wife vs. Allsop, 2 Law Times Rep., N. S., 290. Now it cannot be said that sickness is the natural consequence of defamatory or slanderous words.

Such might or - might