Johnston v. Tait
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. SlANDER in the Common Pleas of Mercer. The declaration laid the words to have been spoken by Tait as follows: “ It is a rascally business. There was a “ collusion between William, Johnston, the plaintiff meaning, “ Aaron Hackney, Levi Arnold and Peter Rambo, to make “ John Bowman swear a false oath in a suit before Peter “ Rambo, (Peter Rambo esquire a justice of the peace mean- “ ing,) between Bowman, the said John Bowman meaning, “and Hackney and Arnold.”
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. SlANDER in the Common Pleas of Mercer. The declaration laid the words to have been spoken by Tait as follows: “ It is a rascally business. There was a “ collusion between William, Johnston, the plaintiff meaning, “ Aaron Hackney, Levi Arnold and Peter Rambo, to make “ John Bowman swear a false oath in a suit before Peter “ Rambo, (Peter Rambo esquire a justice of the peace mean- “ ing,) between Bowman, the said John Bowman meaning, “and Hackney and Arnold.” The evidence was, that the fendant said “ that J ohnston had entered into a collusion with “ Aaron Iiackney and Levi Arnold, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
delivered judgment.
To give the plaintiff the full benefit of his exception, I shall consider the judge as having said that the evidence did not support the declaration; for when he told the jury that the law was doubtful, they would naturally find for the defendant, it being incumbent on the plaintiff to make out his case without doubt both in fact and law. It is a question which admits of very little reasoning. The single point is, whether the words laid and the words proved are substantially the same. I think they are not. A collusion between A, B and £7, and between A, B, £7…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mills v. WimpCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1850
- Soxman v. SoxmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831