
    Addison Osborne vs. John O. Forshee.
    Where the alleged slanderous words are set ont in a declaration in an action for slander, it is error to permit counsel to read to the witness for plaintiff the words in the declaration and then to ask him in relation thereto. '
    Where defendant in an action for slander, had, while a witness in another cause, admitted in answer to a specific question the use of the slanderous words imputed to him,to the plaintiff, Hi:ld, That such admission should not he given in evidence against him.
    Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
   Opinion by

¿^Graves, J.

Forshee having sued Osborne for ver* bal slander and recovered judgment, the latter complains of several rulings made upon the trial. The ground of action, as stated in the declaration, was that Osborne; “ in heafing of divers persons, falsely and maliciously uttered of and to the plaiufiff the 'following false words : You are an old thief and swore to á lie, and lean prove it by Sunborg; I can prove it by Bunce’s docket.” When plaintiff was on the stand as a witness his counsel read to him the statement in the declaration relative to Bunce’s docket and then asked him if there was anything said about Bunce’s docket.- This was ’ objected to as incompetent, but the objection was overruled.»

Held, That the Court erred in admitting the testimony in that shape. By allowing the paragraph in the declaration to be read as an introduction to tUe question put to the p irty, the Court, in sub* stance permitted the plaintiff s counsel, under the guise of an exam inatiou of the plaintiff himself, to make known to the latter the very facts which the form, of the declaration required to be shown and which his counsel wished to find asserted in and by the answer to be given.

■ Plaintiff was further permitted to show, under objection, that on a trial before one Justice Palmer, the defendant, while being examined as a witness, testified in answer to a specific question, that he ‘ had told Forshee that he had sworn to a lie and that he, ("Forshee) could prove it from Bunee’s docket.

Hdd, That the evidence was improperly admitted: Defendant’s evidence elicited in the case before Palmer Was' so far privileged as 'to preclude plaintiff below in this case'from using it as au admission of the slander imputed.

Held, also, That /the objection to evidence of the • defamatory words on the asserted ground that the declaration does nut allege that they were spoken'of and concerning the plaintiff, cannot prevail! The averment is hot what the objection assumes it to be.

The judgment below must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered. '  