Hopkins v. Beedle
New York Supreme Court
This was an action for words spoken of the plaintiff in the discharge of his duty as an overseer of highways in the county of Cayuga. In the 1st count, the charge was for saying,. “You have sworn to a lie, and I will prove it.” In the 2d, “ You have sworn to a lie.” In the 3d, “You have perjured yourself as one of the overseers of the town of Washington, and I can prove it.”
Read the full summary
This was an action for words spoken of the plaintiff in the discharge of his duty as an overseer of highways in the county of Cayuga. In the 1st count, the charge was for saying,. “You have sworn to a lie, and I will prove it.” In the 2d, “ You have sworn to a lie.” In the 3d, “You have perjured yourself as one of the overseers of the town of Washington, and I can prove it.” The jury having found generally for the plaintiff, a motion was now made by the defendant, for an arrest of judgment, on the following grounds: 1. That the words in the first and second counts were not in themselves…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, J.
This is a motion in arrest of judgment. The verdict was general. It is urged on the part of the defendant, that the words in the first and second counts are not actionable,(a) and that it is not alleged that any oath was *433taken by the plaintiff before any person competent to administer it. It is farther urged, that the charge in *434[*349] the third count relates only to the promissory *oath of office, for which an indictment for perjury will not lie.
We are of opinion, that the objection to the first and *435second counts is well taken. Swearing to a lie does not necessarily imply that the party has, in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Chapman v. GilletSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1816
- Ward v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Ross v. RouseNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Crookshank v. GrayNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Linehan v. . NelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.