Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Johns. 82

M'Claughry v. Wetmore

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1810

New York Supreme Court · decided 1810-05-15

THIS was an action of slander. At the trial, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, on the third count, in the declaration, which is as follows: “ And the said James, of his further malice against the said Thomas, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at Stamford, in the county aforesaid, and at divers other days and times, both before and afterwards, and while _ the said Thomas was, then and there, giving testimony, in a court of the people of the…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1810-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1913

4 state decisions

1018101820183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The defendant charged the plaintiff, with swearing false, as a witness m a court of justice, on a point material in the cause. These words so charged are actionable, if spoken maliciously; for they import perjury. To charge a person with taking a false oath in a court, has been held actionable, and this charge is synonymous. (Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the Case for Defamation, D. 5. 7.) In the case of Michell v. Browne, cited in 1 Roll. Abr. 70. pl. 45. it was held not actionable to say, “ He hath delivered false evidence and untruths, in his answer to a bill of chanceryj” but the case assigns the reason for it, that many things in a bill are not material to the matter in variance, and peradventure the charge applies to such matter.” In the present case the declaration states that the plaintiff was swearing to a matter material when he was so charged. In Stafford v. Green, (1 Johns. Rep. 505.) the charge was, that he swore false before ’squire Andrews ; but there was no colloquium stated, to show that it referred to a trial, or other legal-occasion ; and though there was an innuendo to that purpose,. yet it is certain that the want of a colloquium is not cured-by an innuendo; for that can only explain but not enlarge the meaning of the words, without the aid of a colloquium. (8 East, 427.)

¶2After verdict, we must conclude that the malice was proved. If under any circumstances those words so spoken may be actionable, the suit is now to be sustained, and the motion must be denied.

¶3Judgment for the plaintiff.

/6/johns/82 · .json · Public domain