
    
      Rightman Bagley vs. Samuel Johnston.
    
    In an action for a libel, the declaration must profess to set out the very words published : it is not sufficient to allege them to be “ in substance as follows.”
    On general demurrer to a declaration the Court has no power to permit the plaintiff to amend. The judgment for the defendant is final.
    
      Before Withers, J., at Fairfield, Fall Term, 1850.
    This was an action for a libel. After the usual prefatory aver-ments, the declaration alleged the libel to be “in substance as follows and proceeded to set forth certain words addressed, in writing, to the plaintiff.' The defendant filed a general demurrer, and the plaintiff joined therein.
    His Honor sustained the demurrer; holding that a libel must be set forth in hcec verba, or according to the tenor. A different question, he thought, might have been presented, perhaps, if any good reason for omitting to set forth the libel according to the tenor had been assigned in the declaration.
    
      The plaintiff appealed, and moved this Court to reverse the decision, on the ground that it was contrary to law and justice.
    
      Hammond and Buchanan, for the motion.
    Boylston, contra.
   Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

We concur in opinion with the Judge below.

To set out a libel “in substance as follows,” is admitted by all the authorities to be bad.

Starkie, in his Treatise on Slander, (p. 362,) says, “it has long been settled that the declaration, or indictment, must profess to set out the very words published, and that it is not sufficient to describe them by their sense, substance, and effect.”

The Court disclaims the power to alter any well settled principle of the common law. It is only when uncertain, or of doubtful application, that the Court may sometimes be considered as establishing a principle different from what may have been considered the law by others. But when the rule is clear, our duty is performed in declaring and enforcing it.

On a general demurrer, the Court has no power to grant a motion to amend. The judgment is final.

The motion to reverse the Circuit decision is dismissed.

Evans, Wardlaw, Füost and Withebs, JJ., concurred.

Motion refused.  