Dalrymple v. Lofton

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 588

Syllabus

<p>1. In an' action of slander, the defamatory words alleged to have been, spoken were, though variously stated in the declaration, substantially, “you swore falsely on the trial of a case between me and Jerry Joiner, before ’squire Johnson.” The declaration contained a prefatory averment, that a case between the present defendant and Joiner had been pending, and was tried before a “certain Jesse Johnson, a justice of the quorum for the district of Laurens” — that-on the trial thereof, the plaintiff was examined, on oath, and gave his evidence as a witness for the said Joiner; and by proper averments in the colloquium and inuendoes, the words were alleged to have been spoken in reference to .the said evidence. It was held, that the words spoken do not, per se, impute the guilt of perjury; and that the prefatory averment, of which the plaintiff offered no other proof than such as was to be derived from the admissions of the defendant, contained in the words themselves, should have been proved as laid.</p> <p>2. If, by court, or magistrate, or justice, used in connexion with the swearing, the circumstance of a tribunal capable of trying, or an officer competent to administer an oath, had been added, the crime of perjury, it seems, would have been fully described; and in such case, the materiality of the evidence, and the jurisdiction of the tribunal, would he, prima facie, inferred. But in the absence of any word aptly denoting a court or judicial officer, the word “’squire,” or “esquire,” by the usages of society applied without any just discrimination, was of no avail.</p>