
    [No. 1426.]
    Henry Hammers v. The State.
    Slander—Indictment for slander by imputing to a female a want of chastity is insufficient to charge the offense, unless it substantially sets forth the language alleged to be slanderous.
    Appeal from the County Court of He Witt. Tried below before the Hon. O. L. Tlirelkeld, County Judge.
    The indictment, without alleging the language used, charged the slander of Mrs. Barbara Schumaker, by imputing to her a want of chastity. The appellant was convicted, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars and confinement in the county jail for fifteen days.
    The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.
    
      
      W. R. Friend, for the appellant.
    
      0. 8. Eaton, for the State.
   Willson, J.

Defendant was convicted of the offense of imputing a want of chastity to a female. Exceptions to the information, because the words constituting the alleged slander were not set forth therein, were overruled. This was error. In charging this offense, the words alleged to be slanderous must be set forth substantially. (Lagrone v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 426; Melton v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 552.)

Reversed and dismissed.

Opinion delivered January 17, 1883.  