Case Name: SCOTT v. KENFORTH
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1832-04
Citations: 1 Wright 55
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCOTT v. KENFORTH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
SCOTT v. KENFORTH.
Slander — proof of the words — non suit — withdrawing a juror.
The words in slander must be substantially proven as laid in the declaration, and that they were uttered in the slanderous sense charged.
When there is a failure to prove the words laid in the declaration, a non suit _ will be ordered.
Slandkr. The declaration sets forth as inducement to this action, that the plaintiff was a journeyman brewer in the employ of one Metcalf, and charged two sets of words :
1st. He has been guilty of adultery. 2d. He puts tobacco in the ale and porter manufactured by Metcalf.
Plea, not guilty.
Woodward testified,
that Renforth asked him if he knew what was in the beer, &e., and on receiving a reply in the negative, said there is tobacco, and I was ordered to put it in by Scott.
Metcalf testified,
that the defendant told him to put in tobacco, but he did not.
Reeves says,
the defendant once said to him he could prove that tobacco was put in by Scott’s orders, and afterwards said he did not put it in.
By other witnesses it was proven that the defendant said he had put some damned nasty stuff in by Scott’s order, and if the people knew it, they would not drink it.
Winder swore the defendant said,
Scott went to see Christy’s wife, and went for nothing but to have connection with her.
Reeves swore,
he said Scott had connection with Christy’s wife, and that he had know’d her.
N. Wright, for defendant,
moved for a non suit, and cited 1 Phil. Ev. 97 ; 5 Cowen 515, to establish the point, that words must be proven in substance, and in the sense and manner declared on, and contended that the proof here did not come up to the rule.
Fox, contra,
cited 1 Ch. Pl. 383 ; 2 John. 59.

Opinion:
*BY THE COURT.
The rule is well settled, that you must [56 substantially prove the words as laid in the declaration, and that they were spoken in the manner and sense charged; otherwise the proof does not sustain the declaration. The proof here does not satisfy either requisition. It is, that Scott told the defendant to put in the tobacco, and he did not. This will not support the allegation in the declaration. We are of opinion that neither set of words are proven.
A juror was withdrawn by consent and leave given to amend.