
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1803.
    Wolf vs. Rodifer.
    Proof of w*?3a spoken in the se¿ cond person will not support a dec* iaration m an action of slander laying them in th# thirdperfon.
    
    Appuat, from Allegany county court. It was an action of slander, brought by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration charged the appellant with proclaiming, &c, the following false, malicious, and scandalous English words of the appellee, viz. «‘That he the said Joseph was a thief, and had stolen one pine plank, and that he the said John would prove it.” The general issue was pleaded; and the plaintiff, at the trial in the county court, gave in evidence to the jury, that the defendant, in the presence of the ^plaintiff, said “yon are a thief, for you stole a plank, 
      
      and I can prove it.” The defendant prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that such evidence was not sufficient in law to support the declaration of the plaintiff. But the County Court refused to give the direction prayed, being of opinion that the evidence offered was sufficient. The defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff, this appeal was prosecuted by the defendant.
    
      Perry, for the Appellant.
    The words, it will appear by the declaration, are laid in the third person, «‘that lie the said Joseph was a thief, and had stolen,’5 &c. And the proof adduced by the plaintiff below is in the second person, “you are a thief, for you stole a plank, and Í can prove it,” which were not sufficient to prove the words as charged. He cited Esp. 266, Mill. ft. P. 5.
    
    
      Johnson and Buchanan, for the Appellee.
   The Court, Let the judgment be reversed.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED,  