
    *BECHTELL v. SHATLER
    Slander in a foreign language — publication.
    Slanderous words, spoken in Welsh, in a Welsh county, will sustain an action,. without an averment that the words were understood.
    The same rule applies to German words spoken in a German county in Ohio.
    Whether the words were understood, is a question of publication, and after verdict finding a malicious speaking, it will be intended they were uttered in a language understood by those he addressed.
    Error to the Common Pleas. The action below was slander. In the declaration the words are charged to have been spoken in Dutch,, and there is no averment that they were understood by the-hearers.
    
      Jarvis and Starkweather, for the plaintiff in error,
    cite 1 Saund. 242, n. 1; 1 Saund. 228, n. 1; Cro. Eliz. 865; 2 Ch. Pl. 259, n. p.5. Stark. on Slander, 85; Bac. Ab. verdict, 1 T. R. 141.
    
      Avery and Van Rensselaer, contra,
    cite 2 Ch. Pl. 260, n.f. p.; ib. 263, n.; 1 Saund. 242, n. 1; 1 Ch. Pl. 401, 2.
   WRIGHT, J.

The words are charged to have been spoken in a discourse with divers people, and in their hearing. The question is one of publication; if published, it is sufficient. In England, it has been held, that if the words are spoken in Welsh iñ a Welsh county, no averment is required that they are understood. The-court will intend they were understood in such case; Stark. on Slander, 85. If that is good law, the rule seems equally applicable to German words, spoken in a German county, like this. We hold the question one of publication. After verdict, it will be intended that words spoken in a discourse with divers people, concerning another, with a malicious intent, were uttered in a language understood by those he addressed.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.  