
    Columbia, November Term, 1812.
    Thomas Boyd and Wife vs. Alexander Brent.
    
      Nott,for the Motion,
    
    Clifton, Contra.
    
    Action on the case for speaking certain false and slanderous words of the plaintiff’s wife. The words laid were for calling plaintiff’s wife a whore ; no special damage was laid ; and the non-suit was ordered on the ground, that the declaration contained „ ,. no cause of action.
    To call a whore, is "bíe^if" notcon-tain any cause of action, the proper way of fating' advantage of murí°But ha¿ be(=n ordered, the court setitaside, °v°1’°™c!s was clear that the couicfnot recover-
   Brevard, J.

In legal strictness the defendant ought to have demurred to the declaration; but the question now is, whether we shall set aside the non-suit and arrant a new trial: and in deciding this ° . , question, if we see that no good purpose can be answered by setting the non-suit aside, we ought to exercise a sound discretion and not grant the motion. The words charged are not actionable; and if ^ # plaintiff should even obtain a verdict, the judgment would be arrested. 1 Com. Big. 179. 255, 256. 4 Co. 20. 7 Co. 44. 2 Inst. 492. 6 Com. Big. 131. 2 T. JR. 483. 2 Inst. 478. 1 Com. Big. 274. 276. I will not say what my opinion would he, if I had the power to make the law. As my duty is confined to declaring what the law is, I must say that the non-suit ought not be set aside.

The other Judges concurred.  