
    Gower against Clayton.
    In ERROR.
    
      Monday, June 19.
    to4f aition of slanfoephdnti^ five dolían, . he-'seu-?tofulL
    
      CLAYTON, who was plaintiff below,- brought an action of slander, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county, which was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded in favour of the plaintiff, the sum of five dollars, w with cost of suitA rule was obtained by the fendant’s counsel to shew cause, why judgment should not be entered for the plaintiff, for five dollars damages, and five dollars costs, which the Court discharged.
    
      Anthony, for the plaintiff in error,
    referred to Stuart v. Harkins, and Lewis v. England,
      
       to shew, that unless the intention of the arbitrators to give full costs, were perfectly clear, ,a judgment for more costs than damages, where the damages were under forty shillings, in an action of slander, was erroneous ; and argued, that the language of this award, manifested no such intention ; an award of the cost of suit, amounting to no more, than an award of costs, which it is settled cannot be construed to mean full costs.
    
      
      Campbell, for the defendant in error,
    answered, that the power of arbitrators to give full costs in slander, where the damages were less than forty shillings, was no longer matter of doubt; the only question therefore was, whether, in this case, the arbitrators meant to give them, which he inferred from the terms of the award; cost of suit, in common understanding, by which alone the Court were to be guided, being equivalent to full costs. He cited, McLaughlin v. Scott 
      
       and Gueir v. M'Faden,
      
       and relied also, on the cases cited against him, as authorities in his favour.
    
      
       3 Binn. 321.
    
    
      
      6) 4 Binn. 5.
      
    
    
      
       1 Binn. 61.
    
    
      
       2 Binn. 587.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson J.

There can be no doubt as to the power of the arbitrators, to give full costs : the question is, did they intend to do so? The principle of Stuart v. Harkins, (3 Binn. 321.) is right. Although the jury have power to give full costs, where the damages, in slander, are under forty shillings, yet an intention to do so ought clearly to appear: and therefore, a bare finding of “ costs,” without saying more, being equivocal, must be intended to mean, such costs as the act, operating on the subject matter, will allow. But “ costs of suit,” is much less ambiguous, and is, beside, inconsistent, with the description of those costs, which are allowed by the act; for though they are given on account of the suit, they 'are very different in amount, from the popular meaning of the term, “ costs of suit.” I can see no substantial difference of meaning between this term, and “ the costs of suit,” which would undoubtedly include the whole costs. The word “ cost,” being in the singular number, can, I apprehend, make no difference. Here it is impossible to affect not to understand the arbitrators ; and, as their meaning is clear, full costs must be allowed.

Tilghman C. J., was absent in consequence of illness.

Judgment affirmed.  