
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV., 1812.
    Thomas Boyd and Wife v. Alexander Brent.
    To calí a woman a whore, is not actionable. If the declaration does not contain any cause of action, the proper way of taking advantage of it,is to demur. But where a nonsuit had been ordered, the court refused to set it aside, on grounds of convenience, as it was clear that the plaintiff could not recover.
    Action on the case for speaking certain false and slanderous ■words of the plaintiff’s wife. The words laid were for calling plaintiff’s wife a whore ; no special damage was laid, and the non-suit was ordered on the grouwd, that the declaration contained no cause of action.
    'Nott, for the motion. Clifton, contra.
    
   Brevard, J.

In legal strictness, the defendant ought to have demurred to the declaration ; but the question now is, whether we shall set aside the nonsuit and grant a new trial; and in deciding this question, if'we see that no good purpose can be answered by setting the nonsuit aside, we ought to exercise a sound discretion and not grant the motion. The words charged are not actionable; and if the plaintiff should even obtain a verdjct, the judgment would be arrested. 1 Com. Dig. 179, 255, 256. 4 Co. 20. 7 Co. 44. 2 Inst. 492. 6 Com. Dig. 131. 2 T. R. 483. 2 Inst. 478. 1 Com. Dig. 274, 276. I will not say what my opinion would be, if I had the power to make the law. As my duty is confined to declaring what the law is, I must say that the nonsuit ought not to be set aside.

The other judges concurred.  