Hinchman v. Lawson
Supreme Court of Virginia
Uinchman having sworn in an affidavit “ that Lawson had engaged to pay certain taxes, if they could not be made from Green?s heirs,” Lawson said,: that the statement was false,&emdash;that it was all a lie,&emdash;and that he would have Ilinchman indicted for perjury.” For these words, Uinchman brought an action against Lawson for slander, in the circuit superiour court of Logan.
Read the full summary
Uinchman having sworn in an affidavit “ that Lawson had engaged to pay certain taxes, if they could not be made from Green?s heirs,” Lawson said,: that the statement was false,&emdash;that it was all a lie,&emdash;and that he would have Ilinchman indicted for perjury.” For these words, Uinchman brought an action against Lawson for slander, in the circuit superiour court of Logan. Laioson pleaded not guilty, and special pleas avowing the words, and (more or less broadly) justifying them; on which pleas issues were made UP- -A-t the trial, a question arose, on which party the onus probandi lay…
1Opinion of the Court
Tucker, P.
It was a question of the deepest interest at the trial, on whom the onus probandi lay? Hinchman had sworn, that Lawson had made a certain engagement to pay Green’s taxes. Lawson denied it, and charged Hinchman with peijury. Both were under equal difficulty. If, as I presume, the engagement by Lawson had been made without the privity of any other person than Hinchman, it was impossible for Hinchman to prove the truth of what he had sworn. On the other hand, it was equally difficult for Lawson to prove the negative. Availing himself, therefore, of the general principle, that he who…
2Cited by1 opinion
- United Dentists, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934