Rue v. Mitchell
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was an action of slander; for pronouncing the words set forth by the declaration, in the following form, aftethe general introduction and averments; respecting the plaintiff’s good fame and character: “That the defendant published, then and there, the following false, scandalous, lying, English words, of the plaintiff, in the hearing, &c. to wit, You (him the said plaintiff, meaning) have taken a false oath, before squire Rush, (meaning that the said plaintiff had…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of slander; for pronouncing the words set forth by the declaration, in the following form, aftethe general introduction and averments; respecting the plaintiff’s good fame and character: “That the defendant published, then and there, the following false, scandalous, lying, English words, of the plaintiff, in the hearing, &c. to wit, You (him the said plaintiff, meaning) have taken a false oath, before squire Rush, (meaning that the said plaintiff had committed the crime of perjury, in a certain oath, by the said plaintiff, then lately taken, before William Rush, Esq. one of…
1Opinion of the Court
The President delivered the opinion of the Court, in the following terms.
Shippen, President.
The sense in which words are received by the world, is the sense which Courts of Justice ought to ascribe to them, on the trial of actions for slander. Slander imports an injury ; and the injury must arise from the manner in which the slanderous language is understood.
The words, in the present case, certainly import a crime ; and the inuendo (which the Jury have found to be true, and which, therefore, must govern our interpretation of the fact) *60shews that the reference was not to a matter of common…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rue v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1790