Clark filed his declaration in the Circuit Court, in which he charges Dukes with having spoken of Mm certain slanderous words, which, as he alleges, import a charge of incest. Plea, not guilty; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff..
On an inspection of the declaration, we find that the words, as laid, strongly imply a charge against Clark of an illicit intercourse with his sister-in-law. Such an intercourse, however, *21is not incestuous; and there are no words laid in the declaration, which imply a charge of the crime of incest In their strongest import, they imply no more than fornication or adultery. And as, at the time of speaking the words, a man was not liable to an indictment for fornication or adultery, we are clearly of opinion that the words, as laid, are not a sufficient-foundation for an action of slander. The judgment is, therefore, erroneous, and must be reversed (1).
Naylor, for the plaintiff.'
Wick, for the defendant..
The judgment is reversed with costs.