The opinion
BASIL BROWN against BASIL BRASHIER.
IN ERROR.
In an action of slander, it'is suffibient if the words be laid to have been spoken “in-Ocie presence of divers citizens,” although, it- be not laid to have been within their hearing.
It is not good ground, upon which to reverse a judgment, upon an award of arbitrators, that the notice to one of the arbitrators of the time and place of meeting,. Was not served fifteen days before the day of meeting.
Nor is it good ground to reverse such a judgment, that the award was made on a day to which the arbitrators had adjourned, and ofwhich the defendant-had no notice; if he waspresent at the choice of the arbitrators,.and the fixing of the day of meeting.
Error to tlie Common Pleas of Fayette county.
This was an action of slander, brought by Basil Brashier, the-defecdant in error, against Basil Brown; in which the plaintiff thus Set out his complaint, in his declaration: “These false, feigned and malicious, and scandalous words, following, of the said Basil Brashier, in the presence of divers citizens of the said commonwealth, falsely and maliciously did say speak and with a loud voice proclaim, to wit, &c.”
On the 22d December, 1828, the plaintiff entered a rule to choose arbitrators on the 10th January following, when the parties, by ■their attorneys appeared, and chose H. Heaton, Roberts Barton and Robert Patterson as arbitrators, to meet on the 3d February. This order was not served upon H. Heaton and Roberts Barton until the S9th of January. On the 3d February, the day appointed, H. Heaton and Robert Patterson attended; the third arbitrator not attending, nor the defendant, they two made choice of Robert Alexander in -the room of Roberts Barton, and after being sworn, heard part of the evidence on that day, and adjourned to meet the next day j when they did meet, and after having heard the plaintiff’s attorney and some testimony, two of the arbitrators, H. Heaton and Robert Patterson, made an award against the defendant for $200, and costs. The following entry, without date, was made upon the docket, “defendant claims a stay of execution, he being a freeholder.”
The defendant moved in the Court below to set aside the award-
1. The award was made by those .who were not legally appointed arbitrators.
2. Fifteen days’ notice, as the law requires, was not given by the pláinliff .to the arbitrators, previously to the day of meeting.
3. The award was made on a day .of meeting of'.the arbitrators, ■of which the.defendant had no notice.
The Court refused -.to.set aside the award, when -this writ of -error was sued out; and .the reasons for setting aside'the award, •were here assigned for error. And also,
4. The words are not alledged to have been spoken in the .hearing of any pne.
Kennedy for the plaintiff in error.
Austin for defendant in error.
.Judgment affirmed.