
    Chaplin vs. Cruikshanks.
    In an atítion DC Slender for words spoken, it was alleged that the de* irnitant had char^red the plaintiff with poisoning his, the defendants* herse — Held, that the words were not actionable.
    The court refused to direct the jury, that if the horse was alive* the words laid in the declaration were not actionable, the same be* ing- irrelevant to , the issue
    . 1 The eourt also refused to direct the jury, that if the woids spoken did not amount to an offence for which the plaintiff might be indicted, tiiey were not actionable, as the defendant might take advantage of it in arrebt of j utUr'! mem
    Appeal from Kent county court. The plaintiff in the -court below, (now appellee,) an infant 19 years of age, his next friend, brought an action of slander against the defendant, (the appellant.) The first set of words charged in the declaration, with the usual iuuendoes, were— r-'uiy horse is poisoned, and will die, and Tlobert Cniikshanhs had done it, and that he had furnished a certain negro Charles with oil of vitriol, which the said negro Charles had rubbed upon him, and that he also believed that the same was premeditated.” The second set of words, as charged, were the same words, adding, “and that he believed that he was capable of such things, and that he would make no .secret of it, but would tell it every body,” Plea aot guilty, and issue joined.
    1. The defendant, at the trial, moved the court to direct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, that the horse, which the defendant is alleged to have charged the plaintiff with poisoning, was still living, that then the words laid in the declaration are not actionable, and of course their verdict must be for the defendant. But the court, [T'dghman, Ch. J.] was of opinion, that the above was irrelevant to the issue, and therefore refused to give any direction ifiereon to the jury. The defendant excepted.
    
      2. The plaintiff having brought this action óf si ande? against the defendant, in which'he alleged that the plaintiff had poisoned his horse, and there being no averment in the declaration tfiat the horse was dead, the defendant moved the court tó direct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, that the words charged in the declaration to have been spoken by the defendant, were really so spoken, yet, :kii it did not arridunt to dn offence for which the plaintiff might be indicted, the words were not actionable, and of course their verdict must be for the defendant. But thb court, [Tilghrkan, Ch. J.] declined giving the direction to the jury on the subject, as the defendant might take advantage of it in arrest of judgment; and accordingly refused to do so. The defendant excepted. Verdict for the plaintiff, and damages assessed to £8,5 current money. Motion by the defendant in arrest of judgment “for that the declaration of the pláirítiff is insufficient, there being no cause therein stated, on which the said action can be maintained.” The comity court over-ruled the motion, and rendered judgment on the verdict for the plámtiff.
    
      Carmichael and Frisby, for' the Plaintiff,
    and
    
      Tf right and Houston, for the Defendant.
    Thé Defendant appealed to this court.
   The Court

concurred in the opinions given by the court below in both of the bills of exceptions; but reversed fhei judgment, because the words laid in the declaration were not action,able.

JUDGMENT REVERSED,  