
    Winter vs Sumvalt.
    Appeal .from Baltimore county court. This was an ac - tion of slander, brought by the appellee against the appellant. The slanderous words charged in the declaration were these: “You, (meaning the plaintiff,) are a rogue, and I, (meaning himself tire defendant,) can prove that you, (meaning the plaintiff,) cheated Mathias Sitier, (meaning one Mathias Sitier of the city of Baltimore,) out of a hundred dollars.” The general issue was pleaded, and tilery was a verdict for the plaintiff for one cent damages. Motion, and reasons in arrest of judgment. 3. Because thq words spoken had no reference to the plain tiff ip the way of his trade or business. 2. Because they were not in themselves actionable. The pounty court overruled the motion, and rendered judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff The defendant'appealed to this court.
    In an action of elnudtr (Vie words ■tha.-tf'-M! - to ' have benji spoken were, “you are n rogue, and I can prove that joa cheated >1 $ out of 100 dollar!»"---Held, that the words were not in thomiA'lves actionable.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Cln J. Buchanan, Gantt, and Earle, J,
    
      Kell, Winder, and Mcchen, for the Appellant,
    cited 1 Com. Dig. tit. Action, (F. 7,) 268. Ludiwell vs Hole, 1 Stra. 696. S. C. 2 Ld. Baym. 1417. Davis vs Miller, 2 Stra. 1169. Wake vs Chapman, Hardres's Rep. 8, and Cockaine vs Hopkins. 2 Lev. 214.
    
      Scott, for the Appellee.'
   JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT ARRESTED.  