Science

* The knowledge of many me- It neither increases nor diminishes the premthodically digested and arranged, so as to be ises or habendum, for it gives nothing of itattainable by one; a body of principles and self; it may make a restriction when the deductions to explain the nature of some preceding words may be restrained; Hob. matter.

Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 171; 1 P. Wms. 18; Co. Litt. 180 b, n. 1. 637.

See Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. (N. When the scilicet is repugnant to the pre- Y.) 205; Books of Science. cedent matter, it is rejected: for example, when a declaration in trover states that the SCIENDUM (L. Lat.). The name given to plaintiff on the third day of May was posa clause inserted in the record by which it sessed of certain goods w’hich on the fourth is made “known that the justice here in day of May came to the defendant’s hands, court, in this same term, delivered a writ of who afterward, to wit, on the first day thereupon to the deputy sheriff of the county aforesaid, to be executed in due form of May, converted them, the scilicet was relaw.”

Lee, Diet. Record. jected as surplusage; Cro. Jac. 428. And see Ilaak v. Breidenbach, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 15; SCIENTER (Lat. knowingly).

The allega- 3 Saund. 291, note 1. tion in a pleading of knowledge; Webb’s Stating material and traversable matter Poll. Torts 614; on the part of a defendant under a scilicet will not avoid the conseor person accused, >vhich is necessary to quences of a variance; 1 M’Cl. & Y. 277; 2 charge upon him the consequence of the B. & P. 170, n. 2; Vail v. Lewis, 4 Johns. crime or tort. (N. Y.) 450, 4 Am. Dec. 300; nor will the A man may do many acts which are jus- mere omission of a scilicet render immaterial tifiable or not, according as he is ignorant matter material; 2 Saund. 206 a; even in a or not ignorant of certain facts. lie may criminal proceeding; 2 Camp. 307, n. See 3 pass a counterfeit coin, when he is ignorant Maule & S. 173. of its being counterfeit, and is guilty of no It is said to have been used interchangeoffence; but if he knew the coin to be coun- ably with videlicet. It came to be contractterfeit, which is called the scienter, he is ed into ss. Its chief use was in connection guilty of passing counterfeit money. with the venue of an action. Scilicet was Where evidence of the scienter has been used to particularize a general statement, given, it may be rebutted, as where the thus: “London ss. In the Ward of Cheap,” charge is passing counterfeit money, the demeant at London, but more particularly in fendant may show that the bill was genuthe ward of Cheap. When, in 1706, it was ine or that under the circumstances he had enacted that the jury should no longer be reason to suppose it was, or that he exam- summoned de vicineto and the parish and ined a counterfeit detector in regard to it;, ward were dropped from the venue, the State v. Morton, 8 Wis. 352. Proof of a conpleaders hold fast to the ss. (as “London spiracy to put forth counterfeit bills is adss.”) though it had become meaningless. But missible to show the scienter as against one the prevalence of county courts in America of the parties to it; State v. Spalding, 19 has brought back its real use. It should be Conn. 233, 48 Am. Dec. 158. written thus: In an action against the owner of a dog, alleged to be a dangerous animal, the fact Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ss. that it is a watch-dog, chained during the County of Philadelphia day and loosed at night, is sufficient with- meaning: In the commonwealth of Pennsylout further proof of scienter; Montgomery vania, but more particularly in the county of v. Koester, 35 La. Ann. 1091, 48 Am. Rep. Philadelphia.

See 25 Green Bag 59, by J. 253.

O. Skinner. The averment of a scienter in an indict- The omission of “ss.” in a legal document ment is not sufficient to supply omission of is not material so as to invalidate it; Babthe positive statement that the defendant did cock v. Kuntzsch, 85 Hun 33, 32 N. Y. Supp.