
    Rutherford v. Moore.
    Actionable -words spoken in the second person, will not support an averment of words spoken in the third person.
    The words “ He gets his living by thieving,” are actionable.
    Slander. Mr. F. S. Key, moved for a new trial because the Coul’t had admitted improper evidence; and in arrest of judgment because the words are not actionable. The words were, “ He gets his living by thieving.” It must be a specific charge of some crime or misdemeanor liable to punishment. A thief-catcher, an officer of justice, or a judge who gets fees, may be said to get his living by thieving; and he cited Onsloio v. Horne, 3 Wilson, 186; Holt v. Scholefield, 6. T. R. 691; Dawes v. Bolton, Cro. Eliz. 888; Baker v. Pierce, Ld. Raym. 959, and The King v. Aylelt, 1 T. R. 70.
    
      Mr. Law, contra:
    
    The doctrine of mitiori sensu is obsolete; the modern rule is that words shall be taken according to their common understanding and meaning. Beavor v. Hides, 2 Wils. 300.
    The errors in arrest of judgment, were overruled. The motion for new trial was on the ground that the Court erred in suffering words spoken in' the second person, “ you,” &c. to be given in evidence in support of the allegation that the defendant said “ He gets,” &e.; and Mr. Key cited Esp. N. P. 521. Mr. Law, contra, cited Rex v. Pocock, Str. 1157.
    
      Mr. Laio, for the plaintiff,
    moved to amend; which was allowed on payment of the costs of this term, except the jury fee.
   The Court

granted a new trial ón the ground of admitting the improper evidence.  