Innuendo will not help for that actionable words must import in themselves precise slander without ambiguousnesse so that every one that hears them may intend of whom they be spoken For it was said that hée spake the words of the Plaintiff and the Iury found him guilty And this difference was taken where the words in themselves import apparent incertainty and when they may be ascertained by Intendment In the first Case no Averment will aid it But in the last Case by Averment an Averment and a Verdict it may be aided And therefore where the words be One of my Brothers is perjured this is so incertain that neither of them can bring an Action and if he be found guilty by Verdict it will not help But here it did not appear that hée had more Brothers than one and then it may be certain enough and here it is expressy averred to be spoken of him and the Iury hath found him guilty and therefore it is here certain enough And this Case was cited by the Court to be adjudged for the Plaintiff That murdrous Knave Stroughton lay in wait to murder mee And upon this one Thomas Stroughton brought the Action and said they were spoken of him And upon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was adjudged after divers motions to arrest the Iudgement for the Plaintiff Croo. 2. 108. Case 225. Sir Thomas Gresham versus Grindsley Thy Brother was a fool and was never born to do himself any good for that he could not hold his hand from ratifying and subscribing to his Fathers Will notwithstanding I have that to shew in my house that if his heir Elizabeth Gresham do not any such Act as hee hath done it shall bring her to inherit Titsley Sir Tho. upon this sues the Defendant And shews how his Father was seized Slander of a Title to Land of the Mannor of Titsley and of other Lands and by his will devised to A. his wife for life the Remainder in Tail to the Plaintiff and how the Father had issue William the eldest which had issue Elizabeth his Daughter and Heir and this Plaintiff the youngest Son and that A. is dead and the Plaintiff entred and the Defendant to slander his Title spake these words before and shewed further how hée had an intention to make a Ioynture to his Wife and to passe divers parcels of the Land devised to him to his younger children for their advancements and that hée was hindred in his intent by these words ad damnum a hundred pound and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and twenty pound damages But Iudgement was given for the Defendant 1 For that it doth not appear by any thing in the Declaration that the Plaintiff is damnified viz. that hée was about to sell it or has entred into any Bond to make a Ioynture to his wife which by reason of these words would not be accepted and there ought to be some special matter shewed in which damage may be apparent Coo. 4. 18. For upon such general words no special slander may be imposed As if a Lease for life be with a condition to re-enter and J. S. shall say That hee can shew that which will bring him in Reversion to the possession this is no slander of the Title for the very Lease it self by the Indenture by which the Land was devised will bring him to it either by the condition or by the determination of the estate 2 For that it doth appear by the Plaintiffs own shewing that Elizabeth is Heir at Common Law and that the Plaintiff himself had but an estate tail and upon the determination of it Elizabeth will have Titsley as general Heir and the Defendant doth not shew any time certain when Elizabeth shall have it but indefinitely and this shall be taken in meliori sensu Yelverton Rep. 88. Coo. lib. Entries 35. Case 226. Mich. 4. Jac. B. R. Earl of Northumberland versus Birches In an Slander of a Title to Land Action for the slander of a Title The Plaintiff declared that Henry Earl of Arundel was seized in Fée of the Mannor of D. and gave it to the plaintiff in tail and that the Defendant was a Customary Tenant for life of a messuage parcel of the said Mannor And the Plaintiff was in Communication with J. S. to make a Lease for years to him to make a Lease for years of the Land to him to begin after the estate of the Defendant for life was determined for which J. S. agréed to give him five hundred pound that the Defendant intending to hinder that bargain and slander his Title spake these words The late Earl of Arundel Lord of the Mannor of D. did make a Lease of my Tenement to one J. D. for sixty years to begin after my customary estate ended and the same is a good Lease Whereas the said Earl did not make such a Lease by reason whereof neither J. S. nor any other person would give him ten pound for the Lease The Defendant justified that Henry Earl of Arundel before the Gift made to the Plaintiff made such a Lease to J. S. for sixty years and that J. S. conveyed the Lease to him It was objected that the words import not any slander nor is it alledged when the Earl made the Lease But the opinion of the Court was that the words shall be taken in the worse sense according to his intent which hée spake when hée said it to be a good Lease And the words themselves imply that hée spake them to countenance the Title of a stranger which is not lawful and now hée cannot excuse himself by intituling of himself when at the first the words did not import as much and now hée cometh too late to justifie Croo. 2. 163. Case 227. M. 3. Car. B. R. Law and Harwoods Case In this Action for a slander of a Title The Plaintiff declared that hée was seized in Fée as a Coppy-holder Slander of a Title to Land of Land in D. within the Iurisdiction of the Defendants Court and that the Defendant said Hee had not any title to those Lands It was found for the Plaintiff And upon a Writ of Errour brought the Iudgement was reversed because the plaintiff did not shew that by occasion of the words hée had any prejudice as by any bargain of Inheritance or Lease of the Land And this Action is not maintainable without shewing a special prejudice Croo. 1. part last publisht 99. Case 228. M. 6. Jac. B. R. Vaughan versus Ellis M. 6. Jac. B. R. Errour of a Iudgement in the Exchequer-Chamber in an Action of the Case for words for saying Hee is a Bastard The Errour assigned was that the Action lyes not for these words without special cause shewn that hee was damnified by them as to alledge that hée was inheritable to some Lands and that by reason of those words hée is to have losse And here it
marriage c. Vpon not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and damages given and a Writ of error brought and a Iudgement given for the Plaintiff and so the first Iudgement was affirmed and agréed that the words were spoken affirmatively and not by way of Interrogation and that the Action was given for the stain of his blood and his special damage And that a man may perhaps have this Action albeit he have no Land at all Croo. 2. 422. Case 77. Trin. 15. Jac. B. R. Sr. John Tasburge versus Day This Action was brought for this that whereas hee was a Iustice of Peace c. and that hee upon the seventh of March and long before seized in Fée of the Advowson Slander of a Title Of an Officer of Sandcroft in the County of S. and intended to sell it towards the paiment of his debts and the Defendant knowing of it and intending to Slander him in his Religion c. and to Slander his Title to the Advowson and hinder the sale thereof the same day having spéech with divers persons about his Title to the Advowson and about his Religion spake these words True it is that Sir John Tasburge was the true and undoubted Patron of Sandcroft but now hee hath lost that Patronage and presentation by being a Simonist and a Recusant both which I will prove him to bee By reason whereof hee was hindred in the sale of his Advowson And upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff it was adjudged for the Defendant because it doth not appear hee was about the sale of it and so had any special damage by it and for the rest of the words they were held not Actionable Croo. 2. 484. Case 78. Pasche 13. Car. B. R. Humfreys and Studfields Case In this Action for Hindrance of preferment words the Plaintiff declared that hee was heir apparent to his Father and also to his younger Brother who had purchased lands but had no Issue either male or female and that the Defendant with an intent to bring him in disgrace with his Father and also with his younger Brother and thereby to make the Father and younger Brother to give away their Lands from the Plaintiff did maliciously speak these words of him Thou art a Bastard which were spoken before the Father and the Brother Hee is a Bastard by reason of the speaking of which words the Father and younger Brother did intend and afterwards did give their Lands from the Plaintiff and by the opinion of the whole Court it was adjudged that the words were Actionable and Iudgement entred accordingly Godb. Rep. 451. Case 89. Pasche 15. Jac. B R. Cooper versus Smith This Action was brought for this viz. waterman and thou Innuendo the Plaintiff hast killed Charge of Murder thy Masters Cook Innuendo c. and I will bring thee in question for thy life And after Verdict for the Plaintiff and motion to arrest the Iudgment for the Incertainty of the words for that it did not appear who was his Master or that his Master had a Cook it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Incertainty Innuendo and said that albeit the Innuendo cannot make a thing incertain certain but shall serve only as a predict yet the words import that hee had a Master and that his Master had a Cook c. And another Action was brought for these words viz. thou hast sacrificed thy Childe to the Devil and adjudged that the words were Actionable Charge of Murder Pophams Rep. 128. Bridgmans Rep. 60. Case 80. Mich. 44. 45. Eliz. B. R. An Action was brought for this Thy Father By Report Averment said thou hast murdred thy husband Innuendo such a man by name jam defunct and averred ubi re vera her Father spake no such words And Verdict for the Plaintiff upon not guilty pleaded and it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because it was not averred that the husband was dead at the time of the words spoken and divers Cases cyted to the purpose Yelvertons Rep. 20 21. Case 81. Mich. 23. Car. B. R. Person and Dawson An Action was brought for Charge of Theft this your Son Innuendo your Son William stole a Horse and sold him for ten pound and a verdict for the Plaintiff upon a not guilty and after many motions to arrest the Iudgement it was given for the Plaintiff Stiles Rep. 46. Case 82. Pasche 33 Eliz. B. R. Buckley versus Wood. The Plaintiff in this Action Slander in a course of Justice declared that whereas the Defendant did exhibit a Bill against him in the Star-Chamber 30. Eliz. containing inter alia that hee was a nozeler of Théeves Murderers and Pirates c. and recited a great part of the Bill that afterwards the Defendant at P. in the County of Salop. 7 Maij. 31. Eliz. Said hee would justifie his Bill to bee true in every part c. The Defendant pleads that the seventh of May at Wellminster in the County of Middlesex he was demanded of the Lord Chancelour if his Bill were true and he said it was true in all points Absque hoc quod dixit predicta Pleading verba before or after the said day Aliter vel alio modo And upon this the Plaintiff did demur in this Case albeit it was objected For the first thing that it was in a course of Iustice and that his words after were justifiable and that the declaration containing this that he had exhibited his Bill inter alia was not good but that he ought to recite the whole Bill yet it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for that they were matters not examinable in that Court and especially because hée had spoken of them after in the Country Croo. 1. part last publisht 230. 247. Case 83. Action for these words Coles hath strained a Mare Innuendo carnaliter Strained a Mare cognovit equam the Iury found that the Defendant spoke the words C. hath strained a Mare meaning that carnaliter cognovit c. And upon these words the Plaintiff had Iudgement although it was alledged that the words in themselves had no sense And the Innuendo will not help the Innuendo matter but only denote the person but because the verdict was found prerisely that this was his meaning and it is a phrase of the Country it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Croo. 1. part last publisht fol. 250. Case 84. Mich. 33. 34. Eliz. B. R. Cole vers Havilland This Action was A. hath strained a Mare brought for these words Coles hath strained a Mare Innuendo Carnaliter cognovit equam and upon issue joyned c. the Iury found the words and the meaning thereof to be as was declared and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Croo. 1. part last publisht 250. Case 85. The Bishop of Norwich against Pricket Action de scandalis magnatum Scandalum Magnatum brought for these words viz.
Assize Yelvertons Rep. 143. Case 119. Blanchflower and Atwood The Action was for this I will hang him Charge of Treason for hee hath spoken words which be high Treason and they were adjudged actionable Yelverton Rep. 107. Case 120. Brinsby and Balgy M. 5. Jac. B. R. The Action was brought by a Charge indirect of a Robbery Maid in a Treaty of Marriage for this It is no marvel shee comes not to Church for it is thought she is with childe and I fear it is too true And it séems not actionable And yet that such words used about a Robbery would be actionable Yelvertons Rep. 113. Case 121. Tomson and Knot M. 6. Jac. B. R. The Action was brought for these Charge indirect of a Theft words You might have known your own sheep and not have stoln mine In this Case by two Iudges the words were not actionable for they are no direct affirmation of any stealing but by way of Implication and a slander may not be drawn in by a strained construction And two Iudges that they were actionable Yelvertons Rep. 145. Case 122. James Wilshire hath forged the late Queens Writ It was affirmed in Forgery a Writ of Errour that the words are actionable Wilshire Case Mich. 5. Jac. B. R. Yelvertons Rep. 146. Case 123. Staverton and Relfe M. 7. Jac. B. R. The Action was this I will prove Charge indirect of Perjury thee a perjured Knave And it was adjudged actionable for these words I will prove import a vehement affirmative of the thing and the Plaintiffs guilt therein Yelvertons Rep. 160. Case 124. Dromant and Westofer M. 6. Jac. B. R. The Action was for these Charge of Theft Pickpocket words The wife of D. Innuendo the wife of the Plaintiff pickt five shillings six pence out of H. Davis wives pocket and her Husband Innuendo the Plaintiff was consenting to the same and in this Case the Iudgement given in the Common-Pleas upon a Writ of Errour was affirmed in the Kings-Bench for the Plaintiff for the first words to pick a pocket c. are slanderous and in the common phrase is in the worst sense a stealing Yelvertons Rep. 136. Case 125. Tuerleote and Morrison Hill 8. Iac. B. R. The Action was brought for these words by an Alien Merchant Hee is a Bankerupt and fled beyond the Seas for much mony And the Defendant pleaded that the Alien Plaintiff was an Alien but it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Yelvertons Rep. 199. Case 126. 1 In an Action upon the Case for words the Plaintiff did declare That Case hée was Heir apparent to his Father and also to his younger Brother who had purchased Lands but had no issue either Male or Female and that the Loss of Preferment Defendant with an intent to bring him in disgrace with his Father and also with his younger Brother and thereby to make the Father and younger Brother to give away their Lands from the Plaintiff did maliciously speak Thou art a Bastard these words to the Plaintiff Thou art a Bastard which words were spoken in the presence of the Father and younger Brother by reason of speaking which words the Father and younger Brother did intend and afterwards did give their Lands from the Plaintiff And by the opinion of the whole Court it was adjudged that the words were actionable and Iudgement entred accordingly Godbolt Rep. Case 519. Humfreys Case 13. Car. B. R. Case 127. Mich. 20. Jac. B. R. Elborrow versus Allen. Action upon the Case Whereas hee was the Son and Heir of John Elborrow and Anne his Slander of a Title to Land Wife Daughter and Heir of John Travel and had divers Lands by discent from them of the value of two hundred pound per annum that the Defendant envying his estate speaking of the Plaintiff and Katherine his wife said these words Shall Elborrow his wife sit above my wife hee is but a Bastard That by this hée was much scandalized in his Estate and forced to great expence to defend his Title upon Nihil dicit writ of Injury and fifty pound damages and after motion to arrest the Iudgement it was given for the Plaintiff And it was agréed that the words in themselves were scandalous and dangerous that may cause his Inheritance to be questioned Croo. 2. 642. Case 128. Banister sued Banister for saying to him being Son and Heir to his Father Slander of a Title to Land That hee was a Bastard And it was resolved that the Action would lye for the words tended to his dis-inherison But if the Defendant himself had pretended to be the next Heir then the words had not béen actionable Trin. 25. Eliz. B. R. Mich. 3. Jac. B. R. Case 129. Two men having speech together of John Syms and William Syms Slander incertain in the person slandered and in the matter one of them said The Symses make Half-crown peeces and John Syms did carry a cloak-bag full of clippings And whether the Action would lye was the question because it was incertain in the person for hee did not say these Symses but the Symses Like unto the Case where one Farrer being slain and certain persons being Defendants in the Starre-Chamber one having spéech of them said These Defendants did murder Farrer and it was adjudged that the Action would not lye for two causes First Because the words these was incertain in the person And secondly it was incertain in the thing for it might be that they had authority to do it as in Mills Case 13. Jac. in the Kings-Bench Thou Charge of coyning of money hast coyned Gold and art a Coyner of Gold Thirdly a Cloak-bag of Clippings that is also uncertain for it might be Clippings of Wooll or other things or it might be Clippings of Silver from the Goldsmith for the Goldsmith that maketh Plate maketh Clippings and fourthly it is not shewed any certain time when the words were spoken And for these causes it was adjudged that the Action would not lye Godbolt Rep. Case 477. Syms Case Pasche 3. Car. B. R. Case 130. Note it was cited by Chamberlain Justice 15. Jacobi to be adjudged Hinderance of Preferment Bastard Slander of a Title For saying one is a Bastard That where a man brought an Action upon the Case against another man for calling of him Bastard that the Action was maintainable the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and shewed for Errour that the Plaintiff did not claim any Inheritance or to be Heir to any person certain But notwithstanding that Errour assigned the Iudgement was affirmed And hee said that if one saith of J. S. that his Father is an Alien that an Action upon the Case will lye because it is a disability to the Son Quere Godbolt Rep. Case 421. Case 131. Mich. 6. Jac. B. R. Vaughan versus Ellis Errour of a Iudgement in Slander of a Title the Exchequer in an Action of the Case for
words for calling of him Bastard And the cause of the Errour was laid to be that the Action lies not for these words without special cause shewn that hée was damnified by them as that hée was inheritable to some Lands and by reason thereof he Hindrance of preferment is to have losse And here it is shewn that such Land was given in tail to his Grandfather and that his Father had divers Sons whereof the Plaintiff is youngest Son and his Elder Brothers are living and that such a one was to buy the Land and offered him so much for his Title And by reason of those words refused to give him any thing In this case it was For saying of one Hee is a Bastard agréed that albeit hée had no present Title but a possibility and being offered mony for it and having lost this gain by the words and in futuro might receive prejudice in case hee were to claim any Land by descent And for these causes they held the words actionable and did affirm the Iudgement Croo. 2. 213. Case 132. An Action of the Case was brought for speaking of these words viz. J. S. For saying Thou hast had Bastards 34. years since had two Bastards and hath paid for the nursing of them and the Plaintiff shewed that by reason of these words contention grew betwirt him and his wife almost to a divorce and it was adjudged that an Action would not lye for the words and the Chief Iustice said that an Action upon the Case doth not lye for every ill word but for words by speaking of which the Plaintiff is damnified and that cannot be in this Case the time being so long past And the causes wherefore a man shall be punished for saying that a man hath a Bastard are two the one because by the Statute of 14. Elz. The offender is to be punished for the same And secondly because the party by such means is discredited or hindered in his preferment Godbolt Rep. Case 385. Pasche 16. Jac. B. R. Case 133. Sir Gilbert Gerrard brought an Action against Mary Dickinson and Slander of a Title declared that hée was seized of the Land in Fée and was in treaty to make a Lease of it for two and twenty years at a hundred pound a year Rent to R. Egerton and that the Defendant knowing of it said I have a Lease of the Mannor and Castle of H. which was the same Land for ninety years and published it c. by reason whereof R. Egerton did not procéed In this Case it was agréed that no Action would lye for the words although they were false because the Defendant did pretend an interest in the Land So if the Defendant had said that the Plaintiff had no right to the Land but that shee her self had right to it no Action would lye for this Coo. 4. 18. Case 134. An Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz. Thou art a For saying Thou art a Couzener and Bankerupt Couzener and Bankerupt and hast an occupation to deceive men by the words were spoken of a Gentleman who had a hundred pound Land per annum to live upon and therefore although hée used to buy and sell Iron yet because hée was not a Merchant nor did live by his Trade the better opinion of the Court was that the words were not actionable and so adjudged Godb. Rep. Case 45. Hill 28. Eliz. B. R. Case 135. Pasche 15. Car. 1. Smiths Case One said Thou art forsworn and hast Charge of Perjury taken a false Oath at Hereford Assizes against J. S. And the opinion of the Court was against the Action But it was said it would have lyen for this Thou art forsworn and hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes against J. S. with an Averment that hée was sworn in the cause March Rep. pl. 17. Smiths Case Pasche 15. Car. 1. Case 136. Easter 15. Car. 1. Molton versus Clapham The Defendant upon reading Perjury Affidavids in Court openly in the presence and hearing of the Iustices and Lawyers said There is not a word true in the Affidavids which I will prove by forty witnesses March Rep. pl. 45. Molton versus Clapham Easter 15. Car. 1. Case 137. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Johnson versus Dyer The Case was this The Defendant Incertain charge of Felony having spéech with the Father of the Plaintiff said to him I will take my Oath that your Son stole my Hens But did not averr that hée was his Son or that hee had but one Son and it was held not good March Rep. pl. 96. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Case 138. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Just Crooks Case It was agreed That if one had preferred Manner of divulging of a Slander a Bill in the Starr-Chamber against a Iudge for Corruption in his office and then shall go unto a Tavern or other place and tell the effect of it that this is actionable March Rep. pl. 119. Case 139. Pasche 17. Car. 1. B. R. Sir Richard Greenfields Case The Action agreed Charge of couzening to be maintainable for this Thou hast received mony of the King to buy new Saddles and hast couzened the King and bought old Saddles for the Troopers for hee may thereby lose his office or imployment So if hee had said these words of the Kings Sadler March Rep. pl. 135. Case 140. Trin. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. Action was brought for this Thou hast killed my Charge of Murder Lack of Averment Brother Innuendo C. c. fratrem nuper mortuum and it was held by the whole Court not actionable without averment that hee was dead and that the Innuendo will not do it March Rep. pl. 187. See Hobb Rep. pl. 11. Case 141. Trin. 17. Car. 1. Hawes Case The Action was brought for these words Charge of speaking against the book of Common-Prayer Averment Necessary My couzen Hawes hath spoken against the Book of Common-Prayer and said it is not fit to be read in the Church with an averment of a special losse by it that hée was called into the Spiritual Court and the Plaintiff had Iudgement in it March Rep. pl. 191. Case 142. Mich. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. Baine sued for these words That hee kept a Charge of cheating and couzening Averment false Bushel whereby hee did cheat and couzen the poor But hée set forth that hée was a Farmer did use to sow Land and sell the Corn and thereby maintained himself and his Family and that the words were spoken to one that did use to buy of him and that by reason of the words hée lost his custome And it was adjudged actionable March Rep. pl. 192. Case 143. Mich. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. A. sued for these words That hee kept false Couzening weights and hée set forth that hée got his living by buying and selling but did not shew of what Trade or Profession he was and agréed that the Action
Plaintiff declared Slander of a title to Land That his Brother dyed seized of Land in Fée and dyed seized thereof without issue and the Land descended to him as Heir and that he had a purpose to settle part of it upon his Son and to make Leases of part of it and that the Defendant to frustrate his intent used these words The Plaintiff hath no more right to the Land than a stranger It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he did not shew any cause of losse that he was about to make a Lease or assurance of it to his Son but that he had an intent only Croo. 2. 397. 337. Owens Rep. 32. Pophams Rep. 187. Case 167. Trin. 18 Jac. B. R. Action for these words the Plaintiff alledged That 1. April 17 Jac. hée was a Merchant and the said 1. April 17 Jac. the Defendant spake these words of the Plaintiff Hee is a Bankrupt Bankrupt slave the Defendant justifies because 1 April 17 Jac. the Plaintiff became bankrupt but adjudged the words actionable and the Defendants Bar insufficient because he doth not alledge he continueth still a bankrupt for it may be he afterwards recovered himself and became a good Merchant judgement for the Plaintiff Usher and Bretts Case Croo. 2. 578. Case 168. Trin. 22 Jac. in C. B. Action for these words Thou art as arrant a Indirect words Theft thief as is any in England for thou hast broken up I. S. his chest and taken away forty pound After verdict and motion to arrest the Iudgement it was adjudged the first words without any Averment will not maintaine an Action and the last words doe not prove any Felony committed and the money may be taken away and the Chest broken open upon pretence of Tithe and in mid-day in the presence of divers and then it is no felony Iudgement was for the Defendant and there this Case was put by Hobbard Thou art a thief for thou hast stoln away my corn not actionable but if he say For thou hast stoln my corn contra Foster and Brownings Case Croo. 2. 687. Case 169. The Plaintiff being an Attorney in B. R. for one Ecombridge prosecuted for him a Latitat against Lord which he delivered to the Sheriff Slander of a Lawyer upon which Lord was arrested The Defendant having spéeches with Ecombridge concerning the Plaintiff and his honesty as an Attorney and concerning the said Latitat ex malitia praecogitata said these words of the Plaintiff Go tell your Lawyer Roberts that I say hee is a base Rascal and I will make him lose his ears and I will teach him or any Lawyer of them all to have a Writ served on mee Vpon not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff And upon debate between the Iudges it was resolved that the words were actionable Trin. 3. Car. 1. Rott 1170. in B. R. Roberts and Lords Case Ley. 70. Case 170. Action for words The Plaintiff declared that one named Carolus being Charge of Perjury Incertainty of good fame and name the Defendant said â—e prefato Carolâ— Where is this Baker Innuendo Caroius Baker hee hath taken a false oath and I could make him look through the Pillory It was moved that the Innuendo Innuendo will not make it good there being no Baker spoken of before But the opinion of the Court was The Declaration was good And if one say of a Counsellour Where is this Counsellour Innuendo such a one it is good Adjudged for the Plaintiff Trin. 13. Jac. in B. R. Bakers Case Bulstrod 3. part 72. Case 171. Action brought for these words Sir Herbert Crofts keepeth men to rob mee the truth was that the Defendant was robbed by two of Sir Herbert Hee keepeth men to rob mee Crofts men and upon this the Defendant spake the words But the Defendant doth not say That hée did kéep them so to do It was agréed by Cook Chief Iustice and all the Court that the Action would not lye for those words for that there is done and it is to be intended his kéeping of them to be lawfull and the words to rob mee this is but an intent and Inclination and purpose no Act and an intent without an act is not punishable and Hill 39. Eliz. in C. B. Snag and Gee's Case was vouched by Cook where the words were Thou hast killed my Wife and it appeared the Wife was then living Adjudged the words not actionable in the principal Case it being found for the Plaintiff the Iudgement was arrested because the words were not actionable Pasche 14. Jac. B. R. Sir Herbert Crofts and Browns Case Bulstr 3. part 161. Case 172. In an Action upon the Case for words it was found for the Plaintiff Charge of Theft It was laid in the Declaration cum quidam malifactores ignoti had feloniously shorn the shéep of J. S. upon a Communication had betwéen the Defendant and another touching the shearing of these shéep the Defendant spake these words I do know who did shear the sheep predict J. S. Innuendo General and incertain words the other desired of her who this was shee answered It was the Plaintiff and M. that did shear them Innuendo Felonice it was upon Innuendo motion for stay of Iudgement adjudged that the words were not actionable and that the general words shall not be restrained to particular and the Innuendo will not help it And in the Declaration it is laid there was Communication betwixt the Defendant and another concerning the shearing of the shéep but not concerning the Felony And it is not said that shée did know who did shear the shéep feloniously but who did shear them generally and the scandal grows out of an inference only which ought not to be to make words actionable but the words themselves ought to be directly scandalous Iudgement was arrested Mich. 13. Jac. B. R. Helly and Henders Case Balstr 3. part 83. Case 173. Hill 9. Jac. Rott 832. B. R. Action for these words Thou art a Bankerupt Bankerupt Rogue Knave Theef Rogue and accounted a common Knave and thou art a Theef and hast stoln my Corn. Adjudged the first words were not actionable but the second were but because the Iudgement was intire and the damages intire the Iudgement was reversed upon a Writ of Errour Damages entire brought Lloyd and Pearses Case Croo. 2. part 424. Case 174. In an Action upon the Case for words it was found upon not guilty for the Plaintiff The words spoken by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Charge of Forgery were these viz. Thou hast forged Writings for which thou shouldest lose thy ears It was laid in the Declaration that the Plaintiff was a Practitioner Solicitor and Steward of a Mannor The Court was divided in opinion For Mountague Chief Iustice and Crook were of opinion that the words were actionable for although the first words of Charge indirect themselves are not actionable yet