Case Name: Yearly vs. Ashley
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1818-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: Yearly vs. Ashley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Yearly vs. Ashley.
siande” the'wñrdí charged in the the****' declaration my laris’ throats. horses’ unoats* “i took* Ibrwird “nd ciejir himself, or sue ter.f03 iam cerl ray*horses’*throats* o"ib'uevíj my hoises’”throats* «ííL(aftm agen¡I r hunt Ur i** that th.e woS“ we »cttou;
Appeal from Kent County Court. This was an action of slander, brought by the appellee against the appellant, The declaration contained four counts — the words charged ^ first to have been spoken of the defendant, were: “Isaiah Ashley did cut my horses’ throats. In the second'. iiIsaiah Ashley did cut my horses’ throats, or why did he not come forward and clear nimself, or sue me for his cliarac-ter.” In the third: “I am certain that Isaiah Ashley cut my horses’throats, and nobody else” In the fourth: “I believe Isaiah Ashley cut my horses’ throats, and nobody The general issue was pleaded, and there was a general verdict forthe plaintiff The defendant moved *n arrest of judgment, and assigned these reasons — 1. That ^ worc*s were not actionable. And 2. That the words, if trite, imputed no crime against the plaintiff. The county court overruled the motion, and rendered judgment on the verdict, and the defendant appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
Chambers, for the Appellant.
If the words, as laid in any one count in the declaration, are defective, the verdict being general, judgment must be arrested. To sustain an action of slander, either particular damages must be stated, or the words charged must impute some crime. •4 /iac. Jib. 483. The words charged in the declaration should be such, as judgment could be rendered upon, if stated in an indictment; and as the words in question are not those used in the act of 1809, ch. 138, s. 6, no judgment ought to have been rendered. Holt vs. Jtstrigg, Cro. Jae. 184. Holt vs Scholefield, 6 T. R. 691. Mese, vs Linder, 3 Bos. 4' Pull. 372. Barton vs. Bell, Cro. Jae. 331,* and Barham’s Case, 4 Coke, 20.
J. E. Barroll, for the Appellee.
To show that the words were actionable of themselves, he referred to Fincli’s Laws 186. Onslow vs. Horne, 3 Wils. 186. 2 M'.IS ally, 576; and 2 Esp. Big. 81, (497".)

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AYmtMEB.