Kincade v. . Bradshaw
Supreme Court of North Carolina
~1 I From Rowan. j The words spoken charged the Plaintiff with the crime of perjury. — Pleas, the general issue, justification and the statute of limitations. The only point presented was, whether, to support the p!ea of justification, it was necessary to do more than to produce such evidence as would raise a probable presumption of the Plaintiff’s guilt, or should it be such as would be requisite to convict the Plaintiif of perjury on an indictment.
Read the full summary
~1 I From Rowan. j The words spoken charged the Plaintiff with the crime of perjury. — Pleas, the general issue, justification and the statute of limitations. The only point presented was, whether, to support the p!ea of justification, it was necessary to do more than to produce such evidence as would raise a probable presumption of the Plaintiff’s guilt, or should it be such as would be requisite to convict the Plaintiif of perjury on an indictment. The Court below held, that it should be such as would convict if the Plaintiif were on trial for the offence. Under the charge of the Court, a…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief-Justice.
This case comes up, upon an exception to the Judge’s charge, which it. is, therefore, necessary to examine. It contains two positions; the first is, that the Defendant could only entitle himself to a verdict upon his plea of justification, by giving such evidence as would be sufficient to convict the Plaintiff if he were on trial for the offence. The second is, that if the slanderous words had been spoken by the Defendant, and the evidence did not satisfy the Jury of their truth, the Plaintiff was entitled to some damages.
This last position, as stating the true ground…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Chaffin v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Blackburn v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Bruff v. Northwestern Mutual Fire Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1910