
    Joseph Baldwin vs. John B. Hildreth.
    A declaration in slander, which alleges that “ the defendant publicly, falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff of the crime of larceny, in words substantially as follows, " He is a thief,” is bad for not showing that the words were spoken of the plaintiff.
    Slander. “ And the plaintiff says the defendant publicly, falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff of the crime of larceny, in words substantially as follows,' He is a thief.’ ” The defendant demurred to the declaration, as stating no legal cause of action, because it contained no allegation that the words “ He is a thief ” were spoken of or concerning the plaintiff, or that they were spoken by the defendant. The superior court of Suffolk overruled the demurrer, and the defendant appealed.
    
      A. Russ, for the defendant,
    cited 1 Stark. Sland. 384; 1 Saund. 242, note; Barrows v. Bell, 7 Gray, 301; Millard v. Baldwin, 3 Gray, 486; Codding v. Mansfield, 7 Gray, 272.
    
      J. W. May, for the plaintiff.
    To “ accuse ” a person “ in words ” is, ex vi termini, to use the words of and concerning that person; and, whether spoken or written, is a cause of action.
   Shaw, C. J.

Brief as a declaration in slander may now be, it must set forth slanderous words, spoken, written or published by the defendant, directly about or respecting the plaintiff, and “ by means thereof” accusing the plaintiff, or imputing to him a particular offence. The slander consists in speaking words “ about,” or “ respecting,” or (which is the familiar and technical mode of statement) “ of and concerning ” the plaintiff. The word “ accused ” the plaintiff, by certain words, is not equivalent to an averment that the defendant spoke them of the plaintiff. Even the form prescribed in the practice act, St. 1852, c. 312, has the words publicly accused the plaintiff, &c., by words spoken of the plaintiff, substantially as follows.”

Demwrrer sustained.  