Laurent v. Van Somple
161 Wis. 354
Wis.1915Check TreatmentIt is held in this case that the judgment was right because (1) the words alleged do not in their natural and ordinary meaning charge a criminal offense but merely slovenly or imperfect bookkeeping; (2) if it be held that they are defamatory in their nature and hence slanderous because special damage is alleged (Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 292), the answer is that loss of customers by a blacksmith cannot be held to be the natural or proximate result of a charge of bad bookkeeping.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.