
    ILER v. CROMER.
    Slander — character* of plaintiff — evidence on not guilty.
    The character of the plaintiff in a slander suit, is directly in issue upon not guilty.
    The defendant in such ease may inquire into the nature and character of the words spoken, it is competent in mitigation of damages to show that the plaintiff is a common strumpet.
    Error, to the Court of Common Pleas. Miss Cromer sued Iler in the court below for slander, in charging her with having had carnal connection with a dog. On trial upon not guilty, the witness called to prove the words was asked on cross examination by Iler, if the words used were not hypothetical, if any one had connection with her it was the big dog. The plaintiff objected to this, and the court ruled it out. After the plaintiff had closed her evidence, the defendant offered to prove that she was a common prostitute; this was objected to by the plaintiff, and ruled out by the court.
    Burr, for the plaintiff,
    insists the court erred in both particulars.
    May, contra.
   By the Court.

The character of the plaintiff in a slander suit, Is directly in issue upon not guilty; 1 Maulé and Sel. 284; 5 O. B. 225. Unless it be assumed that a common strumpet is held in this community as a fair or good character, entitled to as great damages as a lady above suspicion, evidence of the plaintiff’s being such was admissible. But, however that may be, the court erred in rejecting the question on cross examination, which had, for its sole object, to ascertain the character of the words spoken. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.  