
    Laurent, Appellant, vs. Van Somple, Respondent.
    
      September 16
    
    October 5, 1915.
    
    
      Slander: Words not actionable: Special damage.
    
    1. Words alleged to have been spoken by the pastor of a church concerning plaintiff, who had charge of the collection of the accounts of the parish, to the effect that the books showed that a certain sum had been collected but there was “no account to show what became of it,” are held not to be actionable per se, because they do not in their natural and ordinary meaning charge a criminal offense but merely slovenly or imperfect bookkeeping.
    2. Alleged loss of customers in his business as a blacksmith cannot be held to be the natural or proximate result of the charge of bad bookkeeping so made, so as to render the words actionable.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Oconto county: W. B. QuikxaN, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This is a slander action. A demurrer ore tenus to the complaint was sustained and the plaintiff appeals. The complaint charges in substance that the plaintiff is a blacksmith and wagonmaker in business as such at Lena, Oconto county, Wisconsin; that defendant is a priest and the pastor of the Catholic church at Lena; that in January and February, 1913, the plaintiff was a trustee of said church and secretary of the board of trustees having charge of the collection of the accounts of the parish; that on January 18, 1914, the defendant, while speaking to the congregation about the accounts of the church and the moneys collected and handled by the trustees and the plaintiff, after reading the accounts maliciously spoke of the plaintiff, in the presence of the entire congregation, the following words: “What was done between January and March, 1913, I am not responsible for. There was sixty-odd dollars collected that I cannot account for. I have nothing to show. This is for accounts of January and February, 1913. The books show that this was collected, but there is no account to show what became of it;” meaning to charge and being understood by the hearers to charge the plaintiff with larceny and embezzlement of the funds of the chnrch. It is also alleged that by reason of the speaking of the words the plaintiff has been damaged in his business and lost numerous customers and greatly injured in his reputation, all to his damage in the sum of $3,000.
    Eor the appellant there ivas a brief by Glasson & O’Kellir her, and oral argument by J. V. O’Kelliher.
    
    
      J. H. M. Wigman, for the respondent.
   Winslow, C. J.

It 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.

SlEBECKER, J., dissents.  