
    8053.
    JOHNSON v. SPENCE.
    1. “One who conducts a general farming business is included in a proper interpretation of that division of the Civil Code of 1910, § 4433, which declares that slander may consist in charges made in regard to another ‘in reference to his trade, office, or profession, calculated to injure him therein,’ and that in such a case it is not essential to show special damage in order to support the action.”
    2. The verdict is not excessive, and is supported by the evidence.
    Decided March 20, 1917.
    Action for slander; from Warren superior court—Judge Walker. January 21, 1916.
    
      M. L. Felts, F. P. Davis, for plaintiff in error.
    
      L. D. McGregor, contra.
   George, J.

The ruling stated in the first headnote was made when this case was before the Supreme Court at the March term, 1914 (Spence v. Johnson, 142 Ga. 267 (82 S. E. 646, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1195). It was then held that dhe petition was sufficient to withstand a demurrer except in one particular noted. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff proved his case as alleged, and this is not controverted. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error this statement occurs: “Mr. Spence proved his case as he alleged it. . . Taking the case as made and the law as it is, we concede that the evidence was sufficient to carry the case against Johnson for a nominal amount and to recover costs, but we say that the large verdict of $400 is excessive and should be set aside and a new trial granted.” The motion for new trial is based only upon this ground and the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.  