Case ID: f-cas_21/html/0095-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 12,173.
    RUTHERFORD v. MOORE.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 388.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1806.
    Slander — Actionable Words — Averments.
    1. Actionable words spoken in the second person, will not support an averment of words spoken in the third person.
    [Followed in Birch v. Simms. Case No. 1,427.]
    2. The words “He gets his living by thieving," are actionable.
    F. S. Key, moved for a new trial because the Court had admitted improper evidence: and in arrest of judgment because the words are not actionable. The words were, “He gets his living by thieving.” It must be a specific charge of some crime or misdemean- or liable to punishment. A thief-catcher, an officer of justice, or a judge who gets fees, may be said to get his living by thieving; and he cited Onslow v. Horne, 3 Wils. 180; Holt v. Seholefield, 6 Term R. (501; Dawes v. Bolton, Oro. Eliz. 8S8; Baker v. Pierce. Ld. Raym. 959; and King v. Aylett, 1 Term R. 70.
    Mr. Daw. contra. The doctrine of mitiori sensu is obsolete; the modern rule is that words shall be taken according to their common understanding and moaning. Beavor v. Hides. 2 Wils. 300.
    The errors in arrest of judgment, were overruled. The motion for new trial was on the ground that the court erred in suffering words spoken in the second person, “you.” &e., to be given in evidence in support of the allegation that the defendant said “He gets,” &c.; and Mr. Key cited Esp. N. P. 521. Mr. Law, contrá, cited Rex v. Pocock, Strange, 1157.
    [See Case No. 12,174.]
   THE COURT

granted a new trial on the ground of admitting the improper evidence.

Mr. Law, for plaintiff, moved to amend; which was allowed on payment of the costs of this term, except the jury fee.