You cannot say of a churchwarden, "He | diverted himself on Sunday, when he ought to be in the house of God," for these words charge a breach of duty. (Moore vs. Bloxham, Irish Term Rep., 91.) If you are a church member, however, you can in the course of religious discipline, speak words concerning a church member, that would under other circumstances, be actionable. And this too without telling him privately his fault. Thus you can say, " He has committed forgery." (Jarvis vs. Hathaway, 3 John., 179.) Neither are the words, "Squire O. is a rogue," actionable, if it does not appear that they were spoken of him in his official capacity. (1 Johns., Cases, i29.)

It was held no slander to say, "The justices of the peace do not understand more than this jug the statute of excise, except Mr. Hunt, nor have nothing to do with it, and the said Hunt understands but part, nor one in twenty the parliament men that made it." (2 Keble, 494.) On this case you might risk it to say of a member of your legislature that he did not understand the laws that he had made, and this, even though you could not justify.

It may happen to you sometime to be a party to an action; if you are successful, that of itself will be sufficient; if you are defeated, it undoubtedly will be because your opponent and his witnesses have sworn falsely. If you are so incautious as to call them " perjurers," you will lay yourself liable to another action, but you can say they are "forsworn," that" they have sworn falsely," that "they have taken a false oath," or, "have sworn to a lie," without incurring any liability, and most of those that hear you will not notice the difference between these say ings and the word "perjurers." There are some decisions that hold that you can call a man a perjurer, if at the same time you give a reason for so doing-and this reason impute not felony-thus, you can say, "Mr. B. is a perjured old knave, and that is to be proved by a stake parting the lands of N. and W;" for, it is as much as to say, "Thou art a perjured knave, but none in the world can prove it," which will not bear an action. So it is in this case, the proof of the perjury being referred to a stake, which is a thing insensible, and incapable of producing any proof. (Yelverton, 10.) There once lived in this state a man who knew his right to slander and availed himself of it. He boldly said: 66 Morgan swore to a lie, but, I am not liable, because I have not said in what

suit he testified," and the court held the words not actionable. (Lalor, 263.)

If your opponent, or any one in his behalf, has made an affidavit, you can in your affidavit say that he has committed "perjury," or "rank perjury." (2 Sandf., 195.) When you are on the witness-stand testifying, you can voluntarily, for your own purpose, and even maliciously, defame your adversary and his witnesses in any manner that your ingenuity and malice can suggest; in other words, a witness is not responsible in a civil action for any reflection on another made while giving evidence, and this even though done after his examination is finished, but before leaving the stand. me caution you, however, to beware of the judge, for if you go too far he may commit you for contempt. It would be well, perhaps, before going upon the witness-stand, to instruct your lawyer to ask you such questions that, in answering them, you can avail yourself of your privilege as a witness to gratify any malice that you may have against your opponent, or any of his wit

nesses.

Let

Jones once said to three men who had given evidence against him, "One of you is perjured;" and upon an action brought by one of them, it was adjudged that no action lay; but this is doubtful law in this state.

If you are beaten in this action, and think it was owing to your attorney's want of skill, you can say that he acted like a fool in that particular case; but to say of a stock-broker, " He is a lame duck," is actionable. In talking of an attorney and his skill in his profession, you cannot say, " He cannot read a complaint;" and having said it, the court will not suppose that the attorney is ill-sighted, or that the complaint is ill-written, but will suppose that the words were intended of any complaint. (2 Keble, 710.) Perhaps you might risk saying it if you should carefully leave out any reference to the attorney's profession, for the court allowed Richardson to say of King, “He is a cheating rogue and a cheating knave; it not appearing there was any special reference to King's office; the court thus holding that that was the gist of the action, and must be proved in evidence. (2 Keble, 265.) Yet the court held in the case of Baker vs. Morphew, 2 Keble, 202, that the words, "Morphew hath no more judgment in the law than Master Cheyny's bull," spoken of an attorney while talking about his profession, were actionable, although it was not averred

that Cheyny had a bull, for the scandal is greater if he hath none. It is true the court was divided,—Chief Justice Keeling holding on Fermor's case, that no action lay, but the other three judges were against him, and held that this is as much as to say he had no judgment at all, which is as well a scandal to an attorney as to a counselor. It is actionable to call a lawyer a "daffodowndilly," if there be an averment that the words signify an ambidexter (Pearce's case, Cro. Car., 382); to say he has "no more law than a goose," is actionable, but it was doubted whether the words, "He hath no more law than the man in the moon," were actionable.

You can say of a lawyer, "He has as much law as a monkey," because he hath as much, and more also. But if you say, "He hath no more law than a goose," then are those words actionable. You can say, "He is a common barrator, and deserves to be hanged," for the words," He deserves to be hanged," are too general and extravagant to found an action on; because it was not shown what act was done to deserve hanging. (Yelverton, 90.) The words, "Honest lawyer," spoken ironically of an attorney, were held actionable. (Boydell vs. Jones, 4 Mees & Wels., 446.) No action will lie for the words, "He is a great rogue, and deserves to be hanged as well as Gale, who was condemned for stealing at Newgate. He bade J. S. steal what goods he could, and he would receive them," for by the first words the defendant only expressed his opinion, and perhaps he did not think Gale deserved to be hanged; the other words were but bad counsel, and no act was done. (T. Jones, 157.) You can also say, "A. made a note, and when asked for payment got the holder to wait, and when he sued, A. plead the Statute of Limitations, and got off scot free." (4 Sandf., 60.)

The words," Brown is no gentleman, but is descended from Brown the great puddingeater in Kent," were held actionable in England, it appearing he was not so descended, but from an ancient family.

You cannot say of your butcher, "He has nothing but rotten meat in his shop," but you can say, "He has rotten meat in his shop," for the reason that such words would not tend to his prejudice in his trade, for he might well have rotten meat in his shop and good meat also. (12 Mod., 420.)

The words, "Go, fetch the candles that thou stolest from my Lady Chandoys," were held actionable (2 Keble, 654); and I

remember an unreported case in Oneida County, New York, where the words, "I never stole a log-chain. Did you?" were held slanderous. But it has been held in England that the following words were not actionable : "Bear witness, mistress, that he hath stolen my hair-cloth." The court held that the plaintiff should take nothing by his complaint; for it is no direct affirmation to charge him with the stealing of it, no more than if he should say, "Mistress, you will bear witness that he hath stolen my horse," for thereby the party who speaks does not slander the other, but leaves it to the testimony of others for the proof of it, as if he should say, "J. S. will prove you stole my horse;" these words will not maintain an action. (Yelverton, 126.)

"Thou art a rogue, and receivest stolen mutton from Bess Gamble; she stole it, and you were a partner with her," which Saunders, who was of counsel for the defendant, said, in arrest of judgment, was not actionable, "partner" being an uncertain word, was yet regarded as such by the court, who held that this must be intended partners in guilt, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. (2 Keble, 494.) The words, "We would suggest to the ex-Duke of Brunswick the propriety of withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity," were held not libelous. (2 Car & Ker, 10.) But in another case the court took judicial notice of the meaning of the words, "They had realized the fable of the frozen snake," and held them slanderous. (12 Queen's Bench Rep., 625.)

You can say of the postmaster, "He has broken open my letters in the post-office," without danger (17 N. J. L., 12); in Alabama these words do not involve the idea of moral turpitude, or render him infamous. (2 Stew. & P., 395.) In South Carolina and Tennessee the words, "Those two rascals killed my hogs, and converted them to their own use," are not actionable. (2 Brev., 480, Sneed, 79.) If you are in Minnesota, you can say,

"He robbed the town of St. Cloud," or any other town; or, "He is a public robber," without being liable, for the courts there hold that the crime of robbery cannot be committed against a town. (12 Minn., 494.)

Generally, it is dangerous for a man to quarrel with his physician, but such quarrels sometimes do happen, and it then becomes necessary to consider what can be said of him without being made to pay for the pleasure. Of course you understand that you can call him a "bad man," a "rogue," a

"scoundrel," and many, if not all, of the names mentioned above. I caution you not to say anything against his professional skill, unless, like Meddle in the play, you put by a small weekly stipendium until you can afford it. You can say to his brother doctors that he has met homeopathists in consultation (9 Jurist N. S., 580), and that will injure him very much, if he belongs to the regular school. You can also say, " He was the cause of such a one's death," because" a physician may be the cause of a man's death," said Lord Mansfield, in Peake vs. Oldham, Cowp. 275, "and very innocently," and this remark would in reality reflect upon his skill. But you cannot say, "He hath small practice and is very unfortunate in his way, and there are few sick but die under his hands." (2 Keble, 489.) You can say of him, "He is not a physician, but a twopenny bleeder," and can insinuate that he is not a graduate of a regular medical school. (Foster vs. Small, 3 Wharton, 138–142.)

Let me advise you, if you should be sued for slander, to swear as a witness in your own behalf that you believed what you said to be true. If you have carefully avoided the appearance of malice, as I advised you to do, this evidence, if it does not succeed in establishing a complete defense in your behalf, will serve to reduce the amount of damages to such an extent that you will feel you have had the full worth of your money. "In these cases," saith my Lord Coke, "you may see many excellent points of learning in actions for slander, to observe well the occasion and cause of speaking of them, and how it may be pleaded in the defendants' excuse."

Do not let any unmanly fear of what the world may think or say of you prevent or hinder you from doing your duty. What if there be an unjust prejudice against slander? Many of the most eminent men of antiquity were slanderers - Demosthenes, Cicero, Martin Luther and a host of others. The writings of these men, either in the original or in good translations, should be studied for the purpose of increasing your vocabulary. Then, too, a great part of the disgrace attending slander is because of its supposed secretiveness. These precepts will teach you that you need no longer confine to the closet what you have perhaps for years been desiring to proclaim from the house-top.

Fear not to use these precepts because they are not derived solely from the decis

ions of the courts of this country. Although some of them are based on the decision of the English courts, yet these decisions (says Chancellor Kent) are the best evidence of the common law of England, which has been recognized and adopted, as one entire system, by the constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, and has been assumed by the courts of justice, or declared by statute, as the law of the land in every state in the Union.*

It may seem at the first reading that I have endeavored to injure my profession by extending among the laity a knowledge of the law of slander; but a careful examination of what I have written will convince any lawyer that such is not the case,—that in reality these rules, if acted upon, will be the source of as much new litigation as any "Every Man his own Lawyer" ever printed. I shall thus have made two lawsuits grow where there was one before, and shall have deserved well of the profession. For, my dear brothers, if we can once get a hot-tempered man started on these non-actionable words, ten to one he will forget himself and run over into those that are actionable; or he will so exasperate his opponent that he will either commit an assault (and then we shall have an action for assault and battery), or I will use words that are actionable and so make himself liable to an action for slander; or better yet, will both slander and assault, and then there will be a multiplicity of actions.

I once heard a lawyer from Massachusetts relate a curious instance of the authority of the common law in his state. He said that he once advised a client, who had the reputation of being a fighting man, to plead the right of wager of battle. Now, wager of battle is a trial by combat, and was formerly allowed by the common law. By it the defendant had the right to fight with the plaintiff, the result of the conflict proving whether he was guilty or innocent. My friend argued to the court that the common law, as it was at the Revolution, had been adopted in Massachusetts, and that when adopted, a defendant in England had the legal right to wage his battle, and the law never having been abolished by statute in Massachusetts the had been abolished in England. The court held defendant still had that right, although the law the plea a good one. I have examined the Massachusetts Digest, but I find no reported case to the above effect. Perhaps the story is mythical. It may have been suggested by the celebrated case of Ashford vs. Thornton, I Barn. & Ald. 405, decided in 1818 in England. In this case the defendant did plead his right to wage battle, and the court allowed

it. This case called the attention of Parliament to the fact that this anomaly-this relic of another agewas still a part of the common law of England, and the next year it was abolished.

THE 25th of May, 1866, was no doubt to many a quite indifferent date, but to two persons it was the saddest day of their lives. Charles Randall that day left Bonn, Germany, to catch the steamer home to America, and Ida Werner was left with a mountain of grief on her gentle bosom, which must be melted away drop by drop, in tears, before she could breathe freely again. A year before, Randall, hunting for apartments, his last term at the university just begun, had seen the announcement, "Zimmer zu vermiethen," in the hall below the flat where the Werners lived. Ida answered his ring, for her father was still at his government office, and her mother had gone out to the market to buy the supper. She would much rather her mother had been at home to show the gentleman the rooms; but knowing that they could not afford to lose a chance to rent them, she plucked up courage, and, candle in hand, showed him through the suite. When he came next day with his baggage he learned for the first time what manner of apartments he had engaged; for although he had protracted the investigation the previous evening to the furthest corner, and had been most exacting as to explanations, he had really rented the rooms entirely on account of a certain light in which a set of Madonna features, in auburn hair, had shown at the first opening of the door.

A year had passed since this, and a week ago a letter from home had stated that his father, indignant at his unexplained stay six months beyond the end of his course, had sent him one last remittance, barely sufficient for a steamer ticket, with the intimation that if he did not return on a set day he must thenceforth attend to his own exchequer. The 25th was the last day on which he could leave Bonn to catch the requisite steamer. Had it been in November, nature at least would have sympathized; it was cruel that their autumn time of separation should fall in the spring, when the sky is full of bounteous promise and the earth of blissful trust.

Love is so improvident that a parting a year away is no more feared than death, and a month's end seems dim and distant. But a week-a week only-that even to love is short, and the beginning of the end. The chilling mist that rose from the gulf of sepa

ration so near before them, overshadowed all the brief remnant of their path. They were constantly together. But a silence had come upon them. Never had words seemed idler, they had so much to say. They could say nothing that did not mock the weight on their hearts, and seem trivial and impertinent because it was exclusive of more important matter. The utmost they could do was to lay their hearts open toward each other to receive every least impression of voice, and look, and manner, to be remembered afterward. At evening they went into the minster church, and sitting in the shadows listened to the sweet shrill choir of boys whose music distilled the honey of sorrow, and as the deep bass organ chords gripped their hearts with the tones that underlie all weal and woe, they looked in each other's eyes and did for a space feel so near that all the separation that could come after seemed but a trifling thing. It was all arranged between them. He was to earn money, or get a position in business, and return in a year or two at most and bring her to America.

"Oh," she said once, "if I could but sleep till thou comest again to wake me, how blessed I should be; but, alas, I must wake all through the desolate time !"

Although for the most part she comforted him rather than he her, yet at times she gave way, and once suddenly turned to him and hid her face on his breast, and said, trembling with tearless sobs:

"I know I shall never see thee more, Karl. Thou wilt forget me in thy great far land and wilt love another. My heart tells me so."

And then she raised her head and her streaming eyes blazed with anger.

"I will hover about thee, and if thou lovest another I will kill her as she sleeps by thy side."

And the woman must have loved him much, who, after seeing that look of hers, I would have married him. But a moment after she was listening with abject ear to his promises.

The day came at last. He was to leave at three o'clock. After the noontide meal Ida's mother sat with them and they talked a little about America, Frau Werner exerting herself to give a cheerful tone to the conversation, and Randall answering her questions

absently and without taking his eyes off Ida, who felt herself beginning to be seized with a nervous trembling. At last Frau Werner rose and silently left the room, looking back at them as she closed the door with eyes full of tears. Then as if by a common impulse they rose and put their arms about each other's necks, and their lips met in a long shuddering kiss. The breath came quicker and quicker; sobs broke the kisses; tears poured down and made them salt and bitter as parting kisses should be in which sweetness is mockery. Hitherto they had controlled their feelings, or rather she had controlled him; but it was no use any longer, for the time had come, and they abandoned themselves to the terrible voluptuousness of unrestrained grief, in which there is a strange meaningless suggestion of power, as though it might possibly be a force that could affect or remove its own cause if but wild and strong enough.

"Herr Randall, the carriage waits and you will lose the train," said Frau Werner from the door, in a husky voice.

"I will not go, by God!" he swore, as he felt her clasp convulsively strengthen at the summons. The lesser must yield to the greater, and no loss or gain on earth was worth the grief upon her face. His father might disinherit him; America might sink, but she must smile again. And she did, brave, true girl and lover. The devotion his resolute words proved was like a strong nervine to restore her self-control. She smiled as well as her trembling lips would let her, and said, as she loosed him from her arms: "No, thou must go, Karl. But thou wilt return, nicht wahr?"

I would not venture to say how many times he rushed to the door, and glancing back at her as she stood there desolate, followed his glance once more to her side. Finally, Frau Werner led him as one dazed to the carriage, and the impatient driver drove off at full speed.

It is seven years later, and Randall is pacing the deck of an ocean steamer, outward bound from New York. It is the evening of the first day out. Here and there passengers are leaning over the bulwarks pensively regarding the sinking sun as it sets for the first time between them and their native land, or may be taking in with awed faces the wonder of the deep, which has haunted their imaginations from childhood. Others are already busily striking up acquaintances with fellow-passengers, and a

bridal pair over yonder sit thrilling with the sense of isolation from the world that so emphasizes their mutual dependence and allimportance to each other. And other groups are talking business and referring to money and markets in New York, London and Frankfort as glibly as if they were on land, much to the secret shock of certain raw tourists, who marvel at the insensitiveness of men who, thus speeding between two worlds, and freshly in the presence of the most august and awful form of nature, can keep their minds so steadily fixed upon cashbooks and ledgers.

But Randall, as, with the habit of an old voyager, he already falls to pacing the deck, is too much engrossed with his own thoughts to pay much heed to these things. Only, as he passes a group of Germans, and the familiar accents of the sweet, homely tongue fall on his ear, he pauses, and lingers near.

The darkness gathers, the breeze freshens, the waves come tumbling out of the east, and the motion of the ship increases as she rears upward to meet them. The groups on deck are thinning out fast as the passengers go below to enjoy the fearsome novelty of the first night at sea, and to compose themselves to sleep as it were in the hollow of God's hand. But long into the night, Randall's cigar still marks his pacing up and down as he ponders, with alternations of tender, hopeful glow and sad foreboding the chances of his quest. Will he find her?

It is necessary to go back a little. When Randall reached America on his return from Germany, he immediately began to sow his wild oats, and gave his whole mind to it. Answering Ida's letters got to be a bore, and he gradually ceased doing it. Then came a few sad reproaches from her, and their correspondence ceased. Meanwhile, having had his youthful fling, he settled down as a steady young man of business. One day he was surprised to observe that he had of late insensibly fallen into the habit of thinking a good deal in a pensive sort of way about Ida and those German days. The notion occurred to him that he would hunt up her picture, which he hadn't thought of in five years. With misty eyes and crowding memories he pored over it, and a wave of regretful, yearning tenderness filled his breast.

Late one night after long search he found among his papers 'a bundle of her old letters already growing yellow. Being exceedingly rusty in his German, he had to study them out word by word. That night, till