The defendant is indicted for slandering an innocent woman. The indictment charges that the defendant wantonly and maliciously declared in substance that Nancy S. Love was an incontinent woman. The material evidence was that the defendant said that said Nancy “looked like a woman who had miscarried.” The court told the jury that if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence, that the defendant said she “looked like a woman who had miscarried,” (then he is guilty, and the law' implies malice from such words spoken concerning a single and chaste woman as Nancy is admit*791ted to be. This was error, as these words do not, without some evidence of the conditions, circumstances and surroundings under which they were spoken, per se imply that he intended to say that the woman had been guilty of sexual intercourse. It was an expression of an opinion as to her personal appearance and the defendant was entitled to explain, if he could, what he did mean. Under the charge, however, the jury was bound to render a verdict of guilty, whatever they might have believed and whatever the defendant may have meant. The expression does not necessarily imply a previous state of pregnancy, as such an appearance might result from some other cause. In adopting this course we expressly reserve the question, if. it comes to us again, whether the same words alone are of such a character as to justify the court in submitting them to a jury upon a question of guilt.
New Trial -