of laying himself open to an action for slander, should his statements prove incorrect and damaging.

Repetition of a Slander.

It should be remembered that one can never set up in defence to an action for slander or libel the fact that he merely repeated statements which he had received from another. Even if one says, after giving the story, "So and so told me; I don't know anything about it; I don't believe it is true "-he is not thereby justified, but may be sued and obliged to pay damages for thus publishing the slander.

In short, it is unlawful to make a false statement concerning another, on whatever authority, and whether with or without belief in its truth. Absolute knowledge of its truth is the only justification which can be presented, unless the communication is priv ileged, as already stated.

Malicious Prosecution.

It is a tort, giving a right of action for damages, if one maliciously causes another to be arrested and tried for a crime which the former party knows the latter did not commit. So if he supposes that the accusation is true, but upon insufficient ground to make it reasonably probable, an action lies against him.

Also if one institutes, or causes to be instituted, civil proceedings against another, acting maliciously, and without any reasonable grounds for believing that the suit is a just one, an action for malicious prosecution will lie against him.

Essentials.

This action must be brought after the suit or trial thus falsely instituted has been terminated, either by a

judgment in favor of the defendant, or in some other manner that is legally final.

False Imprisonment.

It is likewise a tort to imprison another, or to put any restraint on his personal liberty, unless by due process of law and under its authority.

CHAPTER XL.

TORTS, CONTINUED.

Assault and Battery-Malice Not Essential--Recovering Property--Self Defence-Master's Loss of Services -Father's Loss of Services of Minor Child-- When Mother May Sue-Notice of Relation Essential—– Father's Right of Action for Seduction of His Daughter-Need not Prove Actual Services of Minor -Woman's Right of Action-Husband's Right of Action--Trespass--Trespass to Realty-Waste, etc. -Need not Prove Damage-Justifiable Entry upon Land-Entry by License of Law--Unnecessary Damage-Conversion--Direct Conversion-Constructive Conversion Right of Possession Essential- Infringement of Patents-Infringement of Copyrights.

Assault and Battery.

Assault and battery have already been defined and considered as crimes. [See Chapter 37.] They come oftener for consideration before the courts of civil procedure, however, action being brought by the injured party to recover damages from the one who makes the attack.

Malice not Essential.

It is not necessary to prove any malice in the de

fendant. If he was merely negligent, and thus committed the wrong unintentionally, he is equally liable therefor. Thus if one handles a pistol without due care, and it is discharged and injures another, the latter has an action for assault and battery against the former.

Recovering Property.

An assault and battery may be committed in the attempt to take one's own property forcibly from another. If you find a thief in your house or stable, you are justified in attacking him, and in saving your property by wresting it from him. But if the thief carries off your property-your horse for instance-and you meet him next day riding the animal, and endeavor forcibly to recover possession of it, he may sue you for assault and battery. You can have recourse to legal process to recover your property, and should not attempt to take the law into your own hands.

Self-Defence Justifiable.

As has already been stated, it is a sufficient defence to such an action, to prove that one only acted in self-defence, inflicting no greater injury than was neces sary for that purpose.

One may use such force as is necessary in defence of his family or servants, as well as of himself and his property; and he may lend his aid in quelling a public riot or fight.

Master's Loss of Services.

When a servant is attacked and injured, not only the servant, but also the master who is entitled to his time and services, may have an action against the party who inflicts the injury.

Father's Right of Action.

So if a minor child is injured, the father may sue the guilty party for the damages caused by loss of the child's services—the father having a legal right to demand such services. But the mother, not being legally obliged to support her children, even when the father is dead, is not entitled to demand their services and cannot sue for their loss. [See further as to father's duty, Chapter 29.]

When Mother May Sue.

If a mother is appointed legal guardian of her minor child, she becomes entitled to his services, and may sue for their loss. So if she is actually receiving ser vices from a child at the time of the injury, she has a right of action, on the principle that any master who is in the receipt of gratuitous services, may sue for their loss quite as much as though he were paying for them. This is true whether the child be above or below the age of majority, and whether it be a boy or a girl.

Notice of the Relation Essential.

To make one liable to a master, or parent, for loss of services of a servant or minor child, the defendant must probably have had notice that such a relation existed, because one is held responsible for the conse quences of his acts, only so far as he could naturally and reasonably have foreseen their effects.

So if one injures a man without any knowledge, or reason to know that he is another's servant, the master has no right of action--though of course the servant has. But in regard to children, it is held that one must reasonably suppose them to belong to somebody, and is therefore responsible to their father