No action for slander will lie, without proof of special damage, unless the words of the slander (1) charge the person slandered with a criminal offence, (2) or where they impute to him a venereal disease, (3) or where they are imputations against a man in his office, profession or trade, (4) or where they attribute unchastity or adultery to a woman. In all other cases of slander the plaintiff must prove a definite temporal loss. The loss may be the loss of a client or customer, or the loss or refusal of some appointment or employment. The loss of a gift, whether pecuniary or otherwise, may be actionable, or of gratuitous hospitality, “for a dinner at a friend’s expense is a thing of temporal value.” “Where the words are not _primâ facie_ defamatory, and where the plaintiff therefore intends to maintain that the words were defamatory by reason of their being understood in a special sense, he must be careful to insert in his statement of claim an averment specifying the defamatory meaning of the words complained of, and showing how they come to have that meaning, and how they relate to the plaintiff. Such an averment is called an _innuendo_.” “It is no defence that the defendant uttered the words complained of in jest, ‘for jests of this kind are not to be endured, and the injury to the reputation of the party grieved is no way lessened by the merriment of him who makes so light of it.’” “Slander, as such, is never a crime, though the words complained of may come within the criminal law as being blasphemous, seditious, or obscene, or as being a solicitation to commit a crime, or a contempt of court.” “For words to be seditious they must be published with intent ‘to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite his Majesty’s subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst his Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.’” The late Sir James Fitz-James Stephen has some interesting conclusions to draw as to what constitutes obscene matter in print. “A person,” he states, “is justified in publishing obscene books, papers, writings, prints, pictures, drawings, or other representations, if their publication is for the public good, as being necessary or advantageous to religion or morality, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature or art, or other objects of general interest; but the justification ceases if the publication is made in such a manner, to such an extent, or under such circumstances, as to excel what the public good requires in regard to the particular matter published.”