
    Miller against T. Miller.
    Where the defendant in an. action of slander said his watch had been « he had reason to believe rl\ took it,” it was' held that this was a sufficient charge of a crime; and that the words were actionable.
    THE facts of this case were the same as in the preceding cause. The proof was, that the defendant had . . said, “ that his watch had been stolen at the widow Millev's, and that he had reason to believe that Tina Mdler had taken it.”
    Russel, for the plaintiff in error-
    Foot, contra.
   Per Curiam.

This case brings up only one of the points decided in the last case, which is, whether after the charge of the plaintiff in error, that his watch had been stolen, the addition of the words, “ and he had reason to believe that the defendant in error took it,” is not a positive averment of the fact. The principle already laid down in the preceding case, is decisive in the present; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  