Kern v. Towsley
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for slander. The words complained of are set forth in the opinion of the court. On the trial, before Justice E. D. Smith and a jury, after the plaintiff had proved the uttering by the defendant of the words, as charged, and rested, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the following grounds, viz : 1st. That the complaint did not state a cause of action for the reason that the words were not actionable in themselves, and there was no colloquium alleging…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for slander. The words complained of are set forth in the opinion of the court. On the trial, before Justice E. D. Smith and a jury, after the plaintiff had proved the uttering by the defendant of the words, as charged, and rested, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the following grounds, viz : 1st. That the complaint did not state a cause of action for the reason that the words were not actionable in themselves, and there was no colloquium alleging the existence of an action before a court of competent jurisdiction, or that the plaintiff was a witness duly sworn, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, James C. Smith, J.
If words are spoken of a person, charging him in express terms, with the crime of perjury, they are actionable without proof of /any extrinsic facts to show their meaning. Such words necessarily import that the person charged has sworn falsely, upon a material point, in a judicial proceeding before a court or officer of competent jurisdiction. So, if the words uttered, although not charging perjury in express terms, necessarily imply that offense. (3 Cai. 73. 5 Cowen, 513. 8 Wend. 573.) In like manner, if the words used to express the charge, are such, in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gilman v. LowellNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Power v. PriceCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Pelton v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Emery v. MillerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Knox v. HexterThe Superior Court of New York City · 1877