Scandalous Matter

In equity pleading. Unnecessary matter criminatory of in the interrogatories to or answers by witnesses. Adams, Eq. 306. Matter which is relevant can never be scandalous (Story, Eq. PI. § 270, 15 Ves. 477); and the degree of relevancy ia of no account in determining- the question (Cooper, Eq. PL 19; 2 Ves. Jr. 24; 6 Ves. 614; 11 Ves. 256; 15 Ves. 477). Where scandal is alleged, whether in the bill (2 Ves. Jr. 631), answer (Mitf. Eq. PI. [Jeremy Ed.] 313), or interrogatories to or answers of witnesses (2 Younge & C. 445), it will be referred to a master at any time (2 Ves. Jr. 631), and, by leave of court, even upon the application of a stranger to the suit (6 Ves. 514; 5 Beav. Rolls, 82), and matter found to be scandalous by him will be expunged (Story, Eq. PI. §§266, 862; 4 Hen. & M. [Va.]_414), at the cost of counsel introducing it, in some cases (Story, Eq. PL § 266). The presence of scandalous matter in the bill is no excuse for its being in the answer. 19 Me. 214. SCANDALUM MAGNATUM (Law Lat. slander of great men).

In old English law. Words spoken in derogation of a peer, a judge, or other great oifficer of the realm. 1 Vent. 60. This was distinct from mere slander in the earlier law, and was considered a more heinous offense. Buller, N. P. 4. See 3 Bl. Comm. 124; 64 111. 296. The doctrine never prevailed in the United States (151 Mass. 50), and is said to be obsolete in England (Odgers, Lib. & Sland. 136). SCAPELLARE (Law Lat.) In old E5uropean law. To chop; to chip or haggle. Spelman. SCAPHA (Lat.)

In the Roman law. A boat; a lighter. Dig. 14. 2. 4, pr. A ship's boat. Id. 6. 1. 3. 1; Id. 21. 2. 44; Loce. de. Jur. Mar. lib. 1, c. 2, § 6. SCARA (Law Lat.)

In old European law. A troop (turma); a division of an array. A phalanx (cuneus). Spelman.

In Equity Pleading. Unnecessary matter criminatory of the defendant or any other person, alleged in the bill, answer, or other pleading, or in the interrogatories to or answers by witnesses. Adams, Eq. 306. “Impertinent matter which is also criminatory, or which otherwise reflects on the character of an individual.’’ Manhattan Trust Co. v. Traction Co., 188 Fed. 1008. It consists of an unnecessary allegation bearing cruelly on the moral character of an individual, or stating matter contrary to good manners, or unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear; Mc Nulty v. Wiesen, 130 Fed. 1012. The court has a right to preserve the purity of its records; its proceedings are not to be converted into a machinery for circulating scandal. It may strike out allegations which wound the character of one party without being of real service to the other; Riddle v. Stevens, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 537. Matter which is relevant can never be scandalous; Story, Eq. PI. § 270; 15 Ves. 477; the degree of relevancy is of no account In determining the question; Cooper, Eq. PI. 19; ‘ 2 Ves. 24. Where scandal is alleged, Mitf. Eq. PI. 313; or interrogatories to or answer of witnesses; 2 Y. & C. 445; it will be referred to a master at any time; 2 Ves. 631; and, by leave of court, even upon the application of a stranger to the suit; 5 Beav. 82; and matter found to be scandalous by him will be expunged; Story, Eq. PI. §§ 266, 862; 4 Hen. & M. 414; at the cost of counsel Introducing it, in some cases; Story, Eq. PI. § 266. The circuit court has an inherent power to strike out scandalous matter on their own motion and in the absence of pleading, and may order a bill to be struck from its files and to permit the complainant to file a new bill excluding such matter; Kelley v. Boettcher, 85 Fed. 55, 29 C. C. A. 14. The presence of scandalous matter in the bill is no excuse for its being in the answer; Langdon v Pickering, 19 Me. 214. Tarts of an answer, though immaterial as a defence and scandalous will not be suppressed when in tended to meet charges of bad faith in the bill; Mercantile Trust Co. v. R. Co., 84 Fed. 379. See Impertinent. SCAN D ALUM MAGNATUM (L. Lat. slander of great men). Words spoken in derogation of a peer, a judge, or other great officer of the realm. 1 Ventr. 60. This was distinct from mere slander in the earlier law, and was considered a more heinous offence. Bull. N. P 4; Webb’s Poll, on Torts, 288 b. It depended on early English statutes which after being long obsolete in practice were repealed in 1887. See 3 Bla. Com. 124.