Case ID: binn_2/html/0060-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Packer against Spangler and Wife.
    1809. Sunbury, Wednesday, July 12.
    
      She swore a “false oath, and “ I can prow it,” not actionable; nor are the words helped pei|uiy.i,Mra^° °f
    IN ERROR.
    ¡ RROR to the Common Pleas oí Centre county.
    
      Spangler and Wife declared against Packer in the court below for slander of the wife. The declaration contained f°Ui counts, the last of which charged that the defendant in a certain discourse concerning the wife, “ published and “ proclaimed the false feigned malicious and opprobrious “ English words following, of and concerning the said Baf- “ bar a, in the presence and hearing of &c.; that is to say, she “ (meaning the said Barbara, wife of the said Peter Spangler) “ swore a false oath, (meaning that the said Barbara had' “ been guilty of the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury) and M I can prove itP The defendant pleaded not guilty, with leave to justify. Upon the trial, evidence was given upon all the counts, and the jury found a general verdict for the plaintiff, five hundred dollars damages, which were levied by execution.
    
      S. Riddle for the plaintiff in error
    referred to the case of Holt v. Scholefield, 
       and that of Ward v. Clark 
      
       as decisive of the question; the words themselves not imputing the crime of perjury, and there being nothing in the colloquium which did, nor any thing in the innuendo which could, extend their signification.
    
      Huston for the defendants in error,
    relied upon the case of Rue v. Mitchell 
       as having extended-the effect of an innuendo so far, as to communicate to the words used by the defendant below, such a meaning as would support the count. But
    
      
      а) 6 D.& E. 691.
    
    
      
       2 Johnson 10.
    
    
      
       2 Dall. 58.
    
   Per Curiam.

The precise point has already been determined by this Court, in the case of Schaffer v. Kintzer. The words are not actionable, nor can the innuendo help them; and therefore the judgment must be reversed. At the same time the Court award restitution of the money levied by execution in the common Pleas, and a venire facias de novo.

Judgment reversed and venire de novo. 
      
      
         1 Binney 537.