Johnson J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The act of 1824 enacts, that words spoken of a female, “ imputing to her a want of chastity,” shall be deemed actionable, without proof of special damage: And it would be difficult to impute want of chastity to a female more completely and directly, than by calling her a strumpet. This action is brought under the act of 1824, and there is no foundation, therefore, for the motion in arrest of judgment. That for a new trial must also fail: Under the authority of Buford ads. M’Luny, 1 N. & M. 268, the defendant was at liberty to shew, in mitigation of damages, the general bad character of the plaintiff; or that she was generally suspected of the fact charged; or such other circumstances short of the actual proof of her guilt, as would establish a ground of suspicion. But the rule is already quite broad enough for the purposes of justice ; and to extend it would be calculated to surprise the plaintiff. It is true the question might have been answered by evidence of the general bad character of the plaintiff: But a direct answer to the question would have been evidence of a particular fact, perhaps irrelevant to the issue, and that too on hearsay. In the shape in which it was put, it was objectionable, for both reasons, and Was very properiy excluded.
Motion refused.