## Facts

- A certificated teacher and headmaster sued a husband and wife for slander based on words spoken by the wife alleging he committed adultery with a married woman who occasionally helped at the school.
- The claim sought general damages only; no special damage (specific pecuniary loss) was pleaded or proved.
- Evidence at trial included testimony that the words were not spoken in reference to the plaintiff as a schoolmaster.
- Defendants admitted that an immoral life could lead to dismissal in the same way as for persons in other occupations.

## Issues

1. Whether spoken words imputing adultery to a schoolmaster are actionable per se without proof of special damage when not spoken “of him” in relation to his office, profession, or calling.
2. Whether courts should expand the common-law categories of slander actionable without special damage to cover allegations of immorality that may foreseeably endanger employment.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the slander was not actionable per se because it was not spoken “touching” or “in the way of” the plaintiff’s calling as a schoolmaster.
- Because no special damage was proved and no recognized per se category applied, the action failed.

## Legal Principles

- Spoken defamation is generally actionable only upon proof of special damage, subject to limited exceptions where damage is presumed.
- One exception requires that the words be spoken “of” the plaintiff “in the way of” the plaintiff’s office, profession, or calling and impute unfitness or misconduct in that capacity; a purely personal imputation does not qualify.
- An allegation of general immorality (including adultery) is not actionable per se against a professional merely because the occupation expects high moral character or because dismissal is a foreseeable consequence, absent a sufficient professional reference in the words as spoken.
- The established common-law categories for slander actionable without special damage are not to be enlarged by courts; any broader protection is for legislation.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that an oral imputation of adultery against a schoolmaster, when not spoken in relation to his professional capacity and without proof of special damage, is not actionable per se, reinforcing the narrow scope of presumed-damage categories in slander.


Jones v. Jones, [1916] 2 A.C. 481 (H.L.)