Stanley v. Brit
Tennessee Supreme Court
In Error. Stanley brought his action, for slanderous words, in the county court of Perry, against Brit. After the usual inducement of good character, &c., the declaration sets out, “that the plaintiff, Stanley, had been sworn as a witness, in a cause in the said county court of Perry county, and gave testimony; yet the defendant, maliciously intending, &c., and to cause it to he suspected, that he, the plaintiff, had been guilty of perjury, and to subject him to the pains,…
Read the full summary
In Error. Stanley brought his action, for slanderous words, in the county court of Perry, against Brit. After the usual inducement of good character, &c., the declaration sets out, “that the plaintiff, Stanley, had been sworn as a witness, in a cause in the said county court of Perry county, and gave testimony; yet the defendant, maliciously intending, &c., and to cause it to he suspected, that he, the plaintiff, had been guilty of perjury, and to subject him to the pains, &c., heretofore, to wit, at the county, &c., falsely and maliciously, in the hearing of divers good citizens, did…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
J.) The principal objection relied on by the defendant in error, is, that there is no sufficient colloquium laid in the declaration. Where the words charged, are not, in. themselves, actionable, and where it is necessary to point them to some specific object, to which they ought to relate, then a colloquium is necessary to apply the words, in order to give effect to their meaning and intended application; but it is not indispensable, in such a case, that the colloquium should precede the statement of the words spoken, although it is certainly more consistent with the precedents so to form the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Niven v. MunnNew York Supreme Court · 1816