
    Cummin against Smith.
    In an action of slander for saying of the plaintiff(i the Reverend Thomas Smith as a perjured man,&c.,? parol evidence that the plaintiff is a minister of the gospel, is admissible.
    ' In Error.
    THIS was an action of slander, in which the defendant in error, the Reverend Thomas Smith, was plaintiff below. The declaration set forth, that the plaintiff was a minister of sthe gospel duly and rightfully ordained, and the defendant said of him, that he was guilty of perjury. On the trial the plaintiff proved, that the defendant had said, “ The Reve“rend Thomas Smith is a perjured man, and we can prove “ it.” He then proposed to ask the witness the following question. “ Is Mr. Smith a preacher of the gospel, and have “ you been in the habit of hearing him preach for years V The counsel for the defendant objected to- this,.question, but tire Court permitted it to be put; upon which an exception was taken. .
    Watts, for the plaintiff in error.
    Huston, contra.
   Tilghman C. J.

(After stating the case.) The objection is, that Mr. Smith's ordination should have been proved by the records of the church to which he belonged. This is certainly the best evidence : but the strictness of the rule is relaxed, in cases where the defendant, by his action or -words, has avowed the fact which is to be proved. One who receives tythes as a clergyman, confesses that he is a clergyman. So an 'inn keeper who writes over his door, that he is licensed to keep post houses,” confesses the license. In an action by an attorney for slander relating to a suit in which he was concerned as attorney, he was permitted to prove the fact of his being an attorney by parol- evidence, because the slanderous words expressly charged him with fraud in his business of attorney. Now in the present case the defendant said, “The Reverend Thomas Smith is a perjured man.” He asserted, that he was a clergyman : and therefore the strict evidence from the church records may be dispensed with. I am of opinion, that the parol evidence was properly received, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases referred to by the Chief Justice. 1 Peake’s Evid. 29. 2 Gould’s Esp. Dig. 111. 515.  