Davies v. Solomon In the Queen’s Bench, November 29, 1871. Reported in Law Reports, 7 Queen’s Bench, 112

Blackburn, J. The sole difficulty in deciding the case is caused by the opinion of Lord Wensleydale in Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. L. C. 577. He held that no action would lie for slander of a wife when the only special damage alleged was the loss to the plaintiff of the consortium of her husband. In the present case, however, it is unnecessary to decide this question, for the declaration, after alleging the loss of cohabitation by the wife, proceeds to aver that “she lost, and was deprived of the companionship, and ceased to receive the hospitality of divers friends.” Now, first, was that consequence such as might reasonably and naturally be expected to follow from the speaking of the slanderous words? Judging from the habits and manners of society, of all the consequences that might be expected to result from a statement that a woman had committed adultery, or had been guilty of unchastity, the most natural would be that those who had invited her and given her hospitality would thenceforth cease to do so. Then Moore v. Meagher, 1 Taunt. 39, decides that the loss of the hospitality of friends is sufficient special damage to sustain an action like the present, and the hospitality, as the word is there used, means simply that persons receive another into their houses, and give him meat and drink gratis. Perhaps such a definition may rather extend the signification of the word, but it is true in effect—for if they do not receive him, or if they make him pay for his entertainment, that is not hospitality. In Roberts v. Roberts, 5 B. & S. 384, 33 L. J. Q. B. 249, it is to be observed, that the loss suffered by the plaintiff in being excluded from a religious society was not temporal, and was therefore held not to be enough. But in the present case there is a matter of temporal damage—small though it be—laid in the declaration. It is also argued, that inasmuch as this action is brought by the wife, the husband being merely joined for conformity, the damage necessary to give a right to recover must be damage to her alone, and that the loss of hospitality which she has hitherto enjoyed is only pecuniary loss to her husband, and not to her. That certainly is a plausible argument, as the husband is of course bound to maintain his wife and to supply her with food, although her friends cease to do so. I am, however, unwilling to agree with such artificial reasoning, and I think that the real damage in this case is to the wife herself. Notwithstanding that it is the husband’s duty to support his wife, he is only bound to provide her with necessaries suitable to his station in life; and she might, by visiting friends in a higher position than himself, enjoy luxuries which he either could not or might not choose to afford her. But I should be sorry to say that we must enter into a nice inquiry as to whether such hospitality would save the purse of the husband or of the wife. I am therefore of opinion that the declaration is good; and the demurrer must be overruled.

Mellor and Hannen, JJ., concurred.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.