case jones against davers slander speak in a language unintelligible to the  auditor be not actionable post roll Abr hob in slander it must he aver that  the word be speak of the plaintiff and that the auditor so understand they  ante   b hob Cowp the plaintiff be register to the bishop of Gloucester bring  a action upon the case and declare the the defendant dixit elpropalavit hcec  of Latium word inprCesentid to visit who to come to know of Rome tongue  videlicet inimicusmeus innuendo the plaintiff be a extortioner and diverse  other slanderous word which be clear actionable the defendant plead a vicious  bar and it be thereupon demurrer but now snagg for the defendant move that  upon this declaration the plaintiff ought not to recover first it be suppose  that the defendant speak slanderous word I n Latin in prcesentid to visit who  understand tongue be of Rome which well may he for tongue Romana at this day  intend the Italian tongue and not the Latin tongue and then if the word be  speak in the presence of those who understand not that tongue the action clear  be not maintainable for it be not slanderous where none understand it and  tand refore it be adjudge in the exchequer where one speak diverse slanderous  word in the Welsh tongue the action lie not without aver they to he speak in  the presence of those who understand the Welsh tongue and of that opinion be  the whole court that if it may he intend that the Latin and Roman tongue  differ as at this time it seem they differ for the Roman tongue now use may he  intend the Italian tongue then the action lie not croak Elizabeth second he do  not say that the plaintiff be a extortioner but he say enemy of me which can  be intend of the plaintiff more than of any other and although the plaintiff  allege that he speak they innuendo the plaintiff it be not material for it do  nov so appear to they who hear it but if it have be aver that at the same time  he be the plaintiff enemy and that the defendant have not any other enemy  there peradventure it will have be otherwise and the whole court be clear of  that opinion Popham chief justice cite sir John bourns case to he adjudge that  where three be swear in evidence against he and he say one of you be p I  erjured and the one of they bring a action for these word and allege that the  defendant speak those word innuendo of the plaintiff and adjudge bat the  action lie not wherefore for the last exception it be adjudge against the  plaintiff see price v Jenkins post