to benefit his romantic interests at the expense of the City of Anniston. In Wiley, supra, the supreme court held that false statements that implied that a public official was misusing his office for his own personal gain were defamatory. 495 So.2d at 619. In Gray v. WALA-TV, 384 So.2d 1062 (Ala.1980), overruled on other grounds, Nelson v. Lapeyrouse Grain Corp., 534 So.2d 1085 (Ala.1988), the supreme court held that statements implying that a public contractor had “corruptly and illegally obtained, through political connections, a contract with the city and had not performed under the contract although having been paid to do so, and thereby dishonestly obtained public funds,” were libelous per se. 384 So.2d at 1065. See also Wofford v. Meeks, 129 Ala. 349, 357, 30 So. 625, 628 (1901) (<HOLDING>); Advertiser Co. v. Jones, 169 Ala. 196,
holding statements regarding plaintiffs unsatisfactory job performance not defamatory per se holding such agreements to be per se illegal holding that statements that plaintiff had had an extramarital affair were defamatory per se holding that in a slanderous or libelous per se context actual damages need not ever be proved holding that false statements impugning honesty of county commissioners in transacting public business were libelous per se