On the other hand, it is not actionable to say of a surgeon, “He did poison the wound of his patient,” without some averment that this was improper treatment, for it might be proper for the cure of it. Nor to say of an apothecary, “He made up the medicine for my child wrong, through jealousy, because I would not allow him to use his own judgment” [355]. Nor to charge a physician or surgeon with “malpractice,” if it appear that the word was not used or understood in a technical sense; and to charge a physician or surgeon with mere want of skill, or with ignorance or neglect, is not actionable _per se_, though untrue, unless the charge be of gross want of skill, or the like, so as to imply general unfitness [356]. Nor is it actionable to call a person who practises medicine or surgery, without legal qualification, a “quack or an |134| impostor,” for the law only protects lawful employment [357]. Even though a medical man be duly registered in Great Britain, still, if he is practising in a colony which requires registration without complying with the colonial law, he may safely be called “a quack,” “a charlatan,” “a scoundrel not to be entrusted with the lives of people” [358]. Words imputing immoral conduct, profligacy or adultery, even when spoken of one holding an office or carrying on a profession or business, are not actionable unless they “touch him” in that office, profession or business. Thus, if adultery is alleged of a clergyman, it will be actionable, because if the charge were true, it would be a ground for degradation or deprivation, as it would prove him unfit to hold his benefice, or to continue the active duties of his profession. But if the same words are spoken of a physician, they will not be actionable without proof of special damage, as they do not necessarily affect the plaintiff in relation to his trade or profession [359]. Nor unless the words are spoken in connection with the professional duties of the plaintiff will an action lie for the words, “He is so steady drunk, he cannot get business any more;” or “He is a twopenny bleeder” [360]. It is no libel to write of a physician that he is in the habit of meeting homœopathists in consultation [361].