
    PHIBE STEVENS, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, v. HANDLY.
    Slander — identical words — substance—-innuendo—words of explanation not declared on.
    It is not necessary in slander to prove tbe identical words laid; proof of tbe substance is sufficient.
    Tbe office of ac innuendo is, to apply tbe words; it cannot extend tbeir meaning beyond their ordinary acceptation.
    Words uttered in connection witb the slander may be considered, in order to explain the sense in wbicb tbe words declared upon were uttered.
    Slander. This suit was brought in behalf of the daughter of the plaintiffs in the last suit, against the same defendant. The plaintiff counted upon the following words: “Stevens keeps a whore house, and Phebe is a whore — Ida has gone to Stevens’, and Stevens keeps a damned whore house; and Debby and Phebe were not able to stand the three tanyard blackguards; and Stevens’ wife, and all the Delanys are whores.” Plea, not guilty, and issue.
    The plaintiff proved by Eliza Rittenhouse, that the defendant said Stevens kepi a damned whore house, and Phebe and Debby had taken on a new mode of making money by their arses. Phebe and Debby are not able to stand the three tanyard blackguards, and took Ida to stand John Lisle, and if it had not been for the fever sore on Phebe’s leg, she would have had the other leg broke long before this time.
    By David Rittenhouse, the same thing.
    By Margaret Riggs,
    
    that the defendant said Phebe Stevens and Debby Delaney had got a great many fine things in a curious way, and kept blackguards’ company, &c.
    By Mary Graham,
    
    that he said if Phebe’s leg had not been sore, she would have had the other leg broke; and also, that they had taken Ida in to help Debby and Phebe stand the tanyard fellows.
    It was also proven, on cross-examination, that the defendant respected tbe plaintiff, whose character was good, and that he had named a child for her; that Ida was a servant of the defendant’s, and had left him and gone to Stevens’; and the defendant was talking about her leaving when he uttered the slander.
    124] *A motion was made for a non suit, because the words were not proved. The motion was overruled by the court.
    
      Bostwick and Beebe, for the plaintiff, and
    
      Stokely and Goodenow, for the defendant, argued to jury.
   HITCHCOCK, J.

to jury. If the words are proven, or so much of either set is proven, as imputes the crime of being a whore, the action is sustained. It is not necessary to prove the identical words; proof of the substance is sufficient. The innuendo is.to give application to words; it cannot extend their meaning beyond their ordinary acceptation. Words not laid in the declaration, which were spoken at the same time with those charged, and explain their sense, may be considered, and will excuse the defendant if they show the other words to have been spoken in an innocent meaning.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $163.50, and judgment.  