Thе first exception taken by the plaintiff was to the ruling of His Honor in regard to the continuance of the cause, but that was no ground for a new trial. It was a matter of discretion. All questions of practice and procedure as to amendments and continuances аrising on a trial in the court below, are in the discretion of the presiding judge, and are not rеviewable in this court, unless possibly when the. discretion is palpably abused, which is not the cаse here.
Austin
v.
Clarke,
The next exception was to the admission of the testimony of the defendant in regard to the report in the neighborhood : Whether the objection was to the leading character of the question propounded to witness, or to its admissibility on the ground of inсompetency does not appear, but on neither ground can the objection be sustained ; not on the first ground because it was in the discretion of His Honor to allow a lеading question, 1 Greenl. Ev., § 435;
Pegram
v.
Stoltz,
. As to the exception that the defendant’s counsel was allowed to argue the force and effect оf the plaintiffs’ evidence on a motion to nonsuit in the midst of the trial: It has been held in the cаse of
Stith
v.
Lookabill,
The remaining exception was to the irregularity in the finding оf the jury: We think the finding of the jury was sufficiently responsive to the issues. They find that no damage was done, in answer to the third issue; and in their finding that the words spoken by the defendant were,
“ You,
McCurry, are a rоgue and your mother has upheld you in stealing from your cradle up,” is a sufficient responsе to the
*300
two first issues. They find substantially that the defendant did not speak the words charged in the complaint. The words found by them to have been spoken cannot be construed to mean a charge that the feme plaintiff was a rogue, or that she had stolen herself or еven concealed anything stolen by her son, but simply that she had upheld him in stealing from his cradlе up. These words do net impute to her any crime that is punishable by the common or statutе law. There are many ways in which a mother may be said to uphold a son addicted to сriminal practices without incurring herself any amenability to the criminal law. She may not have punished him when'his conduct deserved it, or suppressed the evidence of his guilt within her knowledge, or shielded him from prosecution, or vindicated his character when assailed. Such upholding as this would be no crime, however it might violate the moral law ; and if this is the meaning of the charge, it is not actionable. Words which convey only an imperfect sense or prаctice of moral virtue, duty or obligation are not sufficient to support an action.
Eure
v.
Odom,
The words found by the jury were not “per se” actionable and could not be made so, without an inuendo, pointing their meaning, and giving them a slanderous import; and when they are capable оf two interpretations, the one innocent and the other slanderous, it is for them to say hоw the defendant used them. 5 Wait’s Act. and Def., 749, and cases there cited. By the finding of the jury in this case that the plaintiffs have sustained no damage, we must conclude that in their estimation the words were not used in a defamatory sense..
There is no error in the ruling of His Honor upon the exceptions. Let this be certified to the superior court of Yancey county.
No error. Affirmed.