Words of praise and congratulations may be actionable if used in an ironical sense; Martin v. The Picayune, 115 La. 979, 40 South. 376, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 861.
An editor copying a libellous article from another paper, giving his authority but ex pressing his, disbelief of some of the charges, although neither affirming nor denying the libellous charges, may be guilty of libel, whether malice be shown or not; Hotchkiss v. Oliphant, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 510. The head lines of a publication are important in de termining the question of a libel, and they cannot be disregarded, for they often render a publication libellous on its face, which without them would not necessarily be so; Landon v. Watkins, 61 Minn. 137, 63 N. W. 615.
What is Not a Libel Per Se, An adver tisement containing the portrait of a woman, with the statement that she is a nurse and personally used and recommended a certain brand of whisky as a tonic ; Peck v. Tribune Co., 154 Fed. 330, 83 C. C. A. 202; a news paper article charging a candidate for office with impoliteness and lack of party princi ples; Duffy v. Evening Post Co., 109 App. Div. 471, 96 N. Y. Supp. 629; an intimation that a candidate at nil election of a volun tary association is in debt; Nichols v. Daily Reporter Co., 30 Utah 74, 83 Pac. 573, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 339, 116 Am. St. Rep. 796, 8 Ann. Cas. 841; an article referring generally to concerns engaged in the trading stamp business without being specific ; Watson v. Detroit Journal Co., 143 Mich. 430, 107 N. W. 81, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 480, 8 Ann. Cas. 131; a fair comment upon a literary work which is the expression of an honest opinion ; [1903] 2 K. B. 100 ; a document published in England, calculated to disturb the govern ment of some foreign country; 70 J. P. statements in circulars which merely dis parage and express an unfavorable opinion of the goods of another or of a business ri val; Nonpareil Cork Mfg. Co. v. Keasbey & Mattison Co., 108 Fed. 721; Victor Safe & Lock Co. v. Deright, 147 Fed. 211, 77 C. C. A. 437, 8 Ann. Cas. 809 ; a newspaper article charging the complainant with taking part in a revolt hi Brazil; Crashley v. Pub. Co., 179 N. Y. 27, 71 N. E. 258, 1 Ann. Cas. 196; accusing one of being a member of a labor union and an agitator ; Wabash R. Co. v. Young, 162 Ind. 102, 69 N. E. 1003, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1091; imputing adultery to a wo man (prior to the English act of 1891) ; 18 L. Q. R. 255 ; describing a character in a novel as a gross eater and calling him by plaintiff's name ; Dailey v. Bobb's-Merrill Co., 136 N. Y. Supp. 570.
Words are often considered actionable when spoken of clergymen which would not be so if spoken of others ; Newell, Defama tion (2d ed.) 186; Potter v. Publishing Co., 68 App. Div. 95, 74 N. Y. Supp. 317. The
statements must be such as, if true, would unfit him to continue his calling, and, if so, they are actionable per se; Porter v. Publish ing Co., 20 R. I. 88, 37 Atl. 535 ; Piper v. Woolman, 43 Neb. 280, 61 N. W. 588 ; Cole v. Millspaugh, 111 Minn. 159, 126 N. W. 626, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 152, 137 Am. St. Rep. 546, 20 Ann. Cas. 717 ; Shurtleff v. Parker, 130 Mass. 293, 39 Am. Rep. 454; Ritchie v. Wid demer, 59 N. J. L. 290, 35 Atl. 825.
Libel or slander against a patent right is actionable ; Palmer v. Travers, 20 Fed. 501; Bell v. Mfg. Co., 65 Ga. 452; Whitehead v. Kitson, 119 Mass. 484 ; and a public denial of a patent right, if malicious, is also action able; Big. Lead. Cas. Torts 42; but not unless special damage is caused ; 5 Q. B. 624; L. R. 9 Ex. 218. A public denial that the patentee or his assignor was a true in ventor is actionable if it be malicious and cause special damage to the owner of the patent; L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 514; Emack v. Kane, 34 Fed. 46. But an assertion of title in such cases by way of warning or defence, if made in good faith, is not actionable ; Webb's Pollock, Torts 389.
A patentee may warn the public not to buy patented articles except from him ; Hov ey v. Pencil Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 523; Croft v. Richardson, 59 How. Pr. Y.) 356; and it is not a libel to issue a circular in good faith forbidding persons to buy ar ticles claimed to be an infringement; L. R. 25 Ch. Div. 1. There must be malice or that want of good faith which is, by legal intendment, equivalent thereto ; 19 Ch. Div. 386; L. R. 4 Q. B. 730, in which it was term ed "an action of a new kind!" But see L. R. 9 Ex. 218, in which a declaration was held good where the disparagement was a state ment that the goods were inferior, and alleg ing special damage. In that case Bramwell, B., said that the giSt of the action which makes it maintainable is the publication of an untrue statement productive of special damage. The nature of the action was thus characterized in [1892] 2 Q. B. 527: "Such an action is not one of libel or slander, but an action on the case for damage wilfully and intentionally done without just occasion or excuse, analogous to an action for slander of title." The latter, it is said, having been formerly confined to real estate, has been extended "to the of title to chat tels and of exclusive interests analogous to property, though not property in the strict sense, like patent-rights and copyright." Webb's Pollock, Torts 389. The suggestion that these rights are not property in any sense is liable to provoke criticism in this country, and it may be suggested that it is their full recognition as property which affords the basis of their protection by right of action at law in such cases.