State v. Perrin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Perrin

6 S.C.L. 446

DecidedApril 15, 1813

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.C.L. 446 (State v. Perrin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Perrin, 6 S.C.L. 446 (S.C. 1813).

Pincite

Opinion

Brevard, J. 7

There seems to me to be no sufficient legal grounds to support the motions made in this case, or either of them. The libel is charged [447]*447to have been published of, and concerning the prose-cutrix Jane Cox, describing her as the only daughter of the widow Roach. The indictment contains an innuendo, shewing the application of the slander, and averring the identity of Mrs. Roach’s daughter and the prosecutrix, Mrs. Cox.

It was proved that the prosecutrix is the daughter of the widow Roach; but it was not proved that she was an only daughter. I think it was unnecessary to state in the innuendo that she was an only daughter, as it would have been sufficiently certain and complete without it. If this was not necessary to support the indictment, it was not necessary to be proved. Enough was proved to shew the application of the slander, with reasonable certainty, and the rest might be considered as surplus-age, and rejected.

All the court concurred.

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

Brevard, J. 7

There seems to me to be no sufficient legal grounds to support the motions made in this case, or either of them. The libel is charged [447]*447to have been published of, and concerning the prose-cutrix Jane Cox, describing her as the only daughter of the widow Roach. The indictment contains an innuendo, shewing the application of the slander, and averring the identity of Mrs. Roach’s daughter and the prosecutrix, Mrs. Cox.

It was proved that the prosecutrix is the daughter of the widow Roach; but it was not proved that she was an only daughter. I think it was unnecessary to state in the innuendo that she was an only daughter, as it would have been sufficiently certain and complete without it. If this was not necessary to support the indictment, it was not necessary to be proved. Enough was proved to shew the application of the slander, with reasonable certainty, and the rest might be considered as surplus-age, and rejected.

All the court concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.C.L. 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perrin-sc-1813.