LIBEL oit SLANDER. The elements to be considered in fixing the measure of damages are those only which are the natural con sequences of the act complained of ; Mer chants' Ins. Co. v. Buckner, 98 Fed. 222, 39 C. C. A. 19 ; but the damages are not con fined to the actual pecuniary loss; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 Pac. 576 ; they may include injury to reputation ; Scripps v. Reilly, 38 Mich. 10 ; even where the statute provides for recovery only for injury to property, business, trade, profession, occupa tion or feelings ; McGee v. Baumgartner, 121 Mich. 287, 80 N. W. 21; mental suffering (q. v.); Van Ingen v. Star Co., 157 N. Y. 695, 51 N. E. 1094 ; even if that is the only ele ment of damages from malicious slander ; Hacker v. Heiney, 111 Wis. 313, 87 N. W. 249. The interposition of a plea of justifi cation which is not proved is matter in ag gravation of damages ; Coffin v. Brown, 94 Md. 190, 50 Atl. 567, 55 L. R. A. 732, 89 Am. St. Rep. 422 ; Sun Printing & Pub. Ass'n v. Schenck, 98 Fed. 925, 40 C. C. A. 163 ; Potter v. Pub. Co., 68 App. Div. 95, 74 N. Y. Supp. 317. In an action on the case for reflecting on the integrity or responsibility of a mer chant, he is entitled to substantial damages ; Wolkowsky v. Garfunkel (Fla.) 60 South. 791, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 351 and note. All the con sequences of the wrongful act which were reasonably to be foreseen and resulted from it in the ordinary consequences ; Brown v. Durham (Tex.) 42 S. W. 331; King v. Pat
terson, 49 N. J. L. 417, 9 Atl. 705, 60 Am. Rep. 622 ; or were the natural direct and reason able consequence of it ; Blumhardt v. Rohr, 70 Md. 328, 17 Atl. 266 ; among those in cluded by various cases are, diminution of business ; Daisley v. Douglass, 119 Fed. 485 ; or its suspension ; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 174 Mo. 444, 73 S. W. 668 ; prospective dam ages ; Gregory v. Williams, 1 Car. & K. 65; (but these were held too remote and specu lative in Bradqtreet Co. v. Oswald, 96 Ga. 396, 23 S. B. 423) ; injury to credit ; Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co., 116 Mo. 226, 22 S. W. 358, 724, 20 L. R. A. 138, 38 Am. St. Rep. 592 ; Bradstreet Co. v Gill, 72 Tex. 115, 9 S. W. 753, 2 L. R. A. 405, 13 Am. St. Rep. in jury to feelings ; Simons v. Burnham, 102 Mich. 189, 60 N. W. 476 ; especially when malice is shown ; Orth v. Featherly, 87 Mich. 315, 49 N. W. 640. Of course malice may be considered, and, if shown, there may be pu-, nitive damages ; Orth. v. Featherly, and Min ter v. Bradstreet Co., supra; and they are also allowed in the case of libel where the publication is actionable per se, and malice is presumed ; Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. Mach. Co., 139 Ky. 497, 96 S. W. 551, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1023, 139 Am. St. Rep. 504 ; Dun v. Weintrailb, 111 Ga. 416, 36 S. E. 808, 50 L. R. A. 670 ; Mowry v. Raabe, 89 Cal. 606, 27 Pac. 157. See 44.L. A. (N. S.) 351, note.