The following are among the most important forms in which defamatory words are to be found: Imputations of falsehood,12 but the charge must be of intentional falsehood and not of a mistake of judgment;13

Imputations of dishonesty or fraud.14 The conduct charged must be of such a nature as to reflect upon the character and integrity of the plaintiff;15

10 Lindlet vs. Horton, 27 Conn.,58;

Over vs. Schffling, 102 Ind., 191; 26 N. E., 91; Prewitt vs. Wilson, 128 Iowa, 198; 103 N. W., 365.

11 See 25 Cyc. p. 255.

12 Lindley vs. Horton, 27 Conn., 58. 13 Walker vs. Hawley, 56 Conn., 559; 16Atl., 674.

14 Jones vs. Greeley, 25 Fla., 629; 6 So. Rep., 448; holding that to call one "a dishonest man," is libelous per se; Huse vs. Inter-Ocean Pub. Co., 12 111. App., 627; Hart vs. Reed, 1 B. Mon., 166; 35 Am. Dec., 179.

Imputations of indebtedness or delinquency in paying debts,16 at least if the charges are of such a character as will tend to affect a person in his business by injuring his credit;17

Imputations of cruelty;18

Imputations of rascality and general depravity, "written or printed publication imputing roguery, rascality or general depravity which carries with it a charge of moral turpitude and degradation of character, the natural tendency of which is to hold the party up to contempt, and expose him to the reprobation of the virtuous and honorable is libelous per se.,19

Certain single words may be libelous, when published of a person, as villain,20 swindler,21 hypocrite,22 or blackguard23

Charges of political corruption;24

Imputations upon men as to their relations with women.25 Even imputations which do not charge a man with immorality but which will tend to disgrace the man, or to render him ridiculous, are libelous.26

15 Bush vs. Main, 12 Colo., App. 504; 55 Pac, 956; P. O'Con-nell vs. Scontz, 126 Iowa, 709; 102 N. W., 807, holding that a notice from a county officer to a taxpayer that the office had been apprised that the taxpayer had moneys not listed for taxation is not libelous as containing a charge of defrauding the state.

16 Sanders vs. Hall, 22 Tex., Civ. App. 282; 55 S. W., 594; Muetz vs. Teten, 77 Wis., 236; 46 N.W.,123; 20 Am. St. Rep., 115; L. R. A., 86.

17 White vs. Parks, 93 Ga., 633; 20 S. E., 78; Masters vs. Lee, 39 Neb., 574; 58 N. W., 227.

18 Republican Pub. Co. vs. Mosman, 15 Colo., 399; 24 Pac, 1051.

19 CroBsdale vs. Bright, 6 Houst.,

52; Stewart vs. Swift Specific

Co., 76 Ga., 280; 2 Am. St

Rep., 40. 20 Hillhouse vs. Dunning, 6 Conn.

391 21 Kluck vs. Kolby, 46 N. Y., 427

7 Am. Rep., 360. 22 Knox vs. Meehan, 64 Minn., 280

61 N. W., 1149. 23 Davis vs. Griffith, 4 Gill & J

(Md.), 342. 24 Tillson vs. Raffino. 68 Me., 295

28 Am. Rep., 50. 25 Strader vs. Snyder, 67 111., 404

Funk vs. Beverly, 112 Ind.,

190; 13 N. E., 573; Goodrich vs. Davis, 11 Mete, 473. 26 Morey vs. Morning, Journal Asso.,

123 N. Y., 207; 25 N. E., 161;

20 Am. S. Rep., 730; 9 L R.

A., 621, where the charge was made that a breach of promise Many imputations against women, even not amounting to charges of unchastity;27

Certain imputations as to church standing or religious beliefs have held libelous;28

Imputations charging infringement of patent rights are libelous as tending to injure a person in his business;29

Imputations of illegitamacy, as tending to disinherit a person;30

Imputations of cowardice,31 profanity,32 or want of sexual powers.33