case Tuckey against flower the word she be b harden common whore be not in  themselves actionable and therefore must be lie per quod c but it be not  sufficient to lie the special damage by a general allegation videlicet by  which word several that court her in marriage do forbear c SC comb action on  the case for these word she be be harden common whore he have lie with her  several time in the wheat barn at Ashton by which word several that court her  in marriage do forbear c verdict for the plaintiff on a trial before my Lord  Herbert and fifty pound damage I afterward move first that these word be not  actionable for that they be word which import only a spiritual offence and for  which the party can be punish only there and consequent a libel proper there  for defamation in the case of Vaughan v Scandish a a action be bring for say  thou art a whore a bastardbearing whore and Thomas hall whore and thou do play  the whore with he at such a gate our word be the same or rather strong than  these in this case the place and person be mention as in we and yet they be  hold not actionable because it be not allege that she have lose her marriage  or sustain a temporal prejudice but thou have a bastard by he be actionable  because of the statute of James c which order her to Bridewell so that the  word themselves will not bear a action and a world of case there be in roll b  and other c to that purpose second that this allegation of damage be too  general that it signify nothing for first it be such as no answer can be give  to it nor can we tell what to prepare for our defence beside in common  experience on the trial in such a case as this the plaintiff be never put to  prove that general allegation of damage and if she shall we can never be ready  to answer it and in all the case where these word have be hold actionable a  particular damage have be express as in the case of Davies v gardener d there  be a grocer that get her with child there a special damage be lie on a  communication of marriage between the father of the plaintiff and one Elcock  shower KB by name a man of substance so in the case of dame Morrison v cade e  Asket have the use of her body meaning carnal copulation and allege there that  the earl of ken and other have communication with her c and there be many case  where this general allegation be hold nought as that of diverse person b but  see Audley v Halsey W Jones king v Pixley bunb Letchman v Thorogood show Upham  v sumner Bl Rep and Rorke v dayrell term Rep a palm b roll Abr c Com dig d   e  cro James shower KB er p c the same with we as to special damage and it be  hold nought in the case of Norman v Symond f so in the case of Wethered v  Brookebome g word of a dancingmistress sir John holt be of counsel in it it be  hold that a general allegation be not good there be the case of Geatley v  minues h try before my Lord north for word speak of a tailor he be a shuffle  cheat fellow and that thereby be lose diverse customer but the word be hold  not actionable because it only say he have lose diverse customer and do not  say who c and the judgement be arrest and we be force to bring a new action  and to particularize several customer by name this have be a allow difference  take there every day and upon the confidence of the difference we make no  defence at the trial of this case Lord Herbert although you have cite  abundance of case and those direct yet it can enter into my reason but that  these word carry damage in they they import a great scandal and suppose upon  the report of such word no suitor ever come to her be not this ground for a  action here be a great injury do and no relief unless she can name a suitor  perhaps these very word prevent her from have any and what a poor reparation  be a libel in courtchristian for defamation shall our law be so defective as  not to give a remedy I must satisfy my own reason I think as they be lie they  be and ought to be actionable Wythens justice this general allegation of  damage have always be disallow and the word themselves without more be not  actionable Holloway and wright justice ad idem and so we have judgement quod  to express grief nil to take in hand per billam shower KB michaelmas term the  second of James the second in the king bench sir Edward Herbert Knt chief  justice sir Francis Wythens Knt sir Richard Holloway Knt sir Robert wright Knt  justice sir Robert sawyer Knt attorney general sir Thomas powis Knt solicitor  general