Case Name: Stanfield vs. Boyer
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1824-06
Citations: 6 H. & J. 248
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stanfield vs. Boyer.
Judges: The cause was argued before BucíiaüAn; Ch» J. Earle, Martin, and Stephen, J.
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: 6
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
Stanfield vs. Boyer.
■tVorcls tending to charge an uninarneil woman with fornication, are*not actionable
A variance between the words charged in the tie* ehmuion, and the •words proved, is fatal
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was art action of slander. It is deemed unnecessary to state the slanderous words stated in the declaration. They charged the plaintiff, (who was án unmarried woman,) with fornication. The words proved were only such from which the fornication might have been inferred tin the defendant's prayer, the court, \_Hanson, A. J.] refused to direct thé jury, that the plaintiff was not entitledto recover. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before BucíiaüAn; Ch» J. Earle, Martin, and Stephen, J.
Glenn, for the Appellant,
contended, 1. 'That the words charged in the declaration were not actionable, because they neither imputed a crime to the plaintiff, nor charged her with any thing which tended to exclude her from society, nor affected her in her trade or office. In other words, that to call an unmarried woman a whore, was not actionable. 2. That the words proved differ from those alleged in the declaration. On the first point he cited Brooke vs. Coffin, 5 Johns. Rep. 188, and the cases there cited. Thesell vs. Cooper, 1 Roll. Ab. 36. Comb. 138. The act of 1715, ch. 27, s. 3. 12 Mod. 248. On the second point he cited Cook vs. Cox, 3 Maule & Selw. 110; and Hancock vs. Winter, 7 Taunt. 205.
No counsel appeared for the Appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Martin, J.
Two objections have been made to the judgment of the court below in this case, both of which, we think, are sustained upon established principles of law. The words, as proved by the witnesses, are not in them» selves actionable, and if they were actionable, the variance between them and those laid in the declaration, is fatal.
We do not think it necessary to enter into a minute explanation of this case. The judgment of Baltimore county court is reversed, with costs to the appellant.
JUDGMENT reversed.