Case Name: RUTHERFORD v. MOORE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1806-12
Citations: 21 F. Cas. 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: RUTHERFORD v. MOORE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 21
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
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 The doctrine of mitiori sensu is obsolete; the modern rule is that words shall be taken according to their common understanding and moaning.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.]

Opinion:
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.