M'Claughry v. Wetmore

6 Johns. 82
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 82 (M'Claughry v. Wetmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M'Claughry v. Wetmore, 6 Johns. 82 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant charged the plaintiff, with swearing false, as a witness m a court of justice, on a point material in the cause. These words so charged are actionable, if spoken maliciously; for they import perjury. To charge a person with taking a false oath in a court, has been held actionable, and this charge is synonymous. (Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the Case for Defamation, D. 5. 7.) In the case of Michell v. Browne, cited in 1 Roll. Abr. 70. pl. 45. it was held not actionable to say, “ He hath delivered false evidence and untruths, in his answer to a bill of chanceryj” but the case assigns the reason for it, that many things in a bill are not material to the matter in variance, and peradventure the charge applies to such matter.” In the present case the declaration states that the plaintiff was swearing to a matter material when he was so charged. In Stafford v. Green, (1 Johns. Rep. 505.) the charge was, that he swore false before ’squire Andrews ; but there was no colloquium stated, to show that it referred to a trial, or other legal-occasion ; and though there was an innuendo to that purpose,. yet it is certain that the want of a colloquium is not cured-by an innuendo; for that can only explain but not enlarge the meaning of the words, without the aid of a colloquium. (8 East, 427.)

After verdict, we must conclude that the malice was proved. If under any circumstances those words so spoken may be actionable, the suit is now to be sustained, and the motion must be denied.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baker v. Warner
231 U.S. 588 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Cole v. Neustadter
29 P. 550 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1892)
Tuttle v. Bishop
30 Conn. 80 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1861)
Magee v. Stark
20 Tenn. 506 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1840)
Mower v. Watson
11 Vt. 536 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1839)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Johns. 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughry-v-wetmore-nysupct-1810.