The meaning of the words alleged to be libelous cannot, by innuendo, be extended beyond a reasonable construction.

—a newspaper article implying that the publisher of the corporate plaintiff was one of the founders of an anti-Semitic organization.

—and where the words used have a clear meaning and are free from ambiguity it is a question for the court whether the words are capable of the meaning ascribed by the innuendo

Since no question of personal reputation is involved where a plaintiff is a corporation, the alleged defamation must assail the corporation's financial position or business methods, or accuse it of fraud or mismanagement

Innuendoes are not available to impute libel to an article otherwise innocent of any libelous meaning

It has also been clearly established in Illinois that in a libel action based upon published language which is not libelous per se, special damages must be alleged with particularity, and general allegations as to damages are insufficient.

—general allegations stating that, as result of publication, persons refused to have any business transactions with plaintiff, not sufficiently particular to meet special damage requirement

—w] ords spoken or written of a stockholder or officer give no right of action to the corporation unless spoken or written in direct relation to the trade or business of the corporation

If they relate solely to the stockholder, officer or employee in his private or personal capacity, only the individual can complain.