
    NEWBRAUGH v. CURRY.
    Libel — general demurrer to a declaration with some good counts.
    When words are written and published, any which tend to disgrace or lessen the accused in the eye of community, or to provoke a bleach of the peace, are actionable.
    A general demurrer to a declaration of several counts, some of which are good, will be overruled.
    Libel. The declaration contains two counts. The
    1st. For publishing in the Ohio Sun a libel upon the plaintiff and his occupancy of the jail of the county, as follows: ‘But Mr. Newbraugh became an applicant, and on being told that he was in low circumstances, and, as I then thought, honest, I admitted him to occupy the jail.’
    2d. For publishing in the same paper of the plaintiff, and of the renting of the jail by the defendant to the plaintiff, ‘He has put the seal of reprobation upon his own character for truth and veracity, and I have been told he is not to be believed even under oath.’ To this declaration the defendant demurred generally.
    
      T. Morris, for the demurrant,
    insisted that there was no difference between written and oral slander; the charge in each, to sustain an action, must be a specific one of some infamous offence.
    
      Joliffe and Fishback, contra,
    cited Starkie on Slander, 132, 3,4-6, and 1 Ch. PI. 577.
   By the Court.

The rule has been uniformly adhered to in this Court, that when words are written published, whatever tends to disgrace the accused, lessen him in the eye of community, or to provoke a breach of the peace, will support an action. The words declared upon are doubtless of that character. But it is said one of the counts is bad, and so the demurrer must be sustained. The rule is, that where there are several counts, and any one is good, a general demurrer to the whole will be overruled. 1 Ch. PI. 577.

We think one of the counts substantially good, and need give no opinion as to the other.

The demurrer is overruled. Leave was afterwards given to withdraw the demurrer and plead.  