But not alone are patents within the pro tection of this principle. It is a general rule that for false and malicious statements respecting his personal property the owner may have an action if he show (1) that statements were made (2) which were un true (3) to the special damage of the plain tiff ; 9 Eng. Rul. Cas. 130 ; L. R. 9 Ex. 218 ; Boynton v. Stocking Co., 146 Mass. 219, 15 N. E. 507; Tobias v. Harland, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 537; Paull v. Halferty, 63 Pa. 46, 3 Am. Rep. 518; 4 U. C. Q. B. 0. S. 34; Newell, Defamation 216.
The rule has been applied in case of dis paraging statements as to a public dinner served at a hotel; Dooling v. Pub. Co., 144 Mass. 258, 10 N. E. 809, 59 Am. Rep. 83 ; the "Cardiff Giant".; Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235, 23 Am. Rep. 322 ; a race-horse ; Wilson v. Dubois, 35 Minn. 471, 29 N. W. 68, 59 Am. Rep. 335 ; milk sold by plaintiff ; Brooks v. Harison, 91 N. Y. 83; copyrighted books; Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 104.
Actions by and against Corporations. A corporation cannot be the subject of crim inal libel ; Com. v. Cochran, 16 Pa. Dist. R. 313; contra, State v. Boogher, 3 Mo. App. 442. A 'corporation may sue for a libel or slander upon it in.the way of its business or trade ; Gross Coal Co. v. Rose, 126 Wis. 24, 105 N. W. 225, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741, 110 Am. St. Rep. 894, 5 Ann. Cas. 549; a corpora tlon is liable civilly for a libel in a letter written by its manager upon its letter head, although the libellous statement was not known to or assented to by it; Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. Mach. Co., 96 S. W. 551, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 861, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1023; and knowingly publishing a libel is ratifica tion of such act; id. A telegraph company is not liable for the transmission of a libellous message over its wires, where such message was handled as a matter of routine business by its agents; Western Un ion Telegraph Co. v., Cashman, 149 Fed. 367; 81 ' C. C. A. 5, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 140, 9 Ann. Cas. 693.
Libel of a Class. Ordinarily an actioin for libel will not lie by one of• a class for a libel on the whole class; e. `g. a libel on Catholic clergymen; People v. Eastman, 188 N. Y. 478, 81 N. E. 459, 11 Ain. Cas. 302; or on all persons engaged in the trading stamp busi ness; Watson v. Detroit Journal Co., 143 Mich. 430, 107 N. W. 81, 5 L. I. A. (N. S.) 480, 8 Ann. Cas. 131. It is doubtful whether a soldier in the Civil War could sue for a libel on the whole army; Palmeg V. City of
Concord, 48 N. H. 211, 97 Am. Dec. 6O5.
But where the class is it held An officer of a regiment may sue for a libel on the entire regiment; 1 Murray (Scot.) 196; a member of a jury for a libel on the whole jury; Byers v. Martin, 2 Colo. 605, 25 Am. Rep. 755; a member of a board of trustees for a libel which charged them with a corrupt combination; Schomberg v. Walker, 132 Cal. 224, 64 Pac. 290. If the libel is against a part of a group, it must be shown that it concerned the plaintiff; Car uth v. Richeson, 96 Mo. 186, 9 S. W. 633; Hardy v. Williamson, 86 'Ga. 551, 12 S. E. 874, 22 Am. St. Rep. 479. An osteopath hav ing an office in a building may recover for a publication by physicians and dentists oc cupying offices in the building objecting to renting its offices to osteopaths, criminal practitioners, quacks, etc.; Lathrop v. Sund berg, 55 Wash. 144, 104 Pac. 176, 25 L.. H. A. (N. S.) 381; a member of a vestry for a libel on the vestry aS a whole; Goldsborough v. Orem & Johnson, 103 Md. 671, 64 AtL 36; so a member of the W. C. T. U. for a libel on the whole membership in a certain city; Street v. Johnson, 80 Wis. 455, 50 N. W. 395, 14 L. R. A. 203, 27 Am. St. Rep. 42. One who libels a whole family must take the risk of libelling each member of Fenstermaker v. Pub. Co., 13 Utah 532, 45 Pac. 1097, 35 L. R. A. 611..
Actions by Third Parties. A publication which alleges that plaintiff's sister has been arrested for larceny gives plaintiff a cause of action; Merrill v. Pub. Co., 197 Mass. 185, 83 N. E. 419. Where one published libellous words against another's wife, and the mental anguish resulted in her physical illness, it was held that he could recover fo the loss of services; Garrison v. Pub. Ass'n, 150 A. Div. 689, 135 N. Y. Supp. 721.
A corporation may recover for an article which charges one of its officers as being an ex-criminal; New York Bureau of Informa tion v. Ridgway-Thayer Co., 119 App. 111v. 339, 104 N. Y. Supp. 202; and it may recover for a libel upon it, as distinct from that upon Its individual members; Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. Machine Co.,. 96 S. W. 551, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 861, 8 L. IL A. (N. S,) 1023; but charging a business corporation with be ing composed of fraudulent and criminal persona is not ground for an action for slander; Hapgoods v. Crawford, 125 App. Div. 856, 110 N. Y. Supp. 122.