Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-09-01

tle hair Of her head Il was the day before
She died. Y Ncm., t}gl I, has been held
IN Massachusetts, that q charge OF 'piunieriua
library, would not Of itself he sIlndrr1us.
because. though it conveys the notion of a
wrongful acquisition, it does not express, the
ua.ur, Of the wrong done Garter IS. An.
dre"s 10 Pickering, ~
Word, which are harmless when spoken ri
au ordinary individual are ,caudllou- when
ppken Of peer II England thus, to say OF
q peer, "llc {, no more To- be- valued than a
dog, is scandal, yet you can call an arch.
bishop o cyyc.Uu- man rs Henry s, Rot 6iql
and uau say Of him, lie hath no more CON
science than dog; but, in England, lu in.
,'m.ni viii lie lot saying, cts a good
world where baggafy priests are made lords, %
lHs being a public scandal. Il Keble, 500
You can call clergyman Ounce, bluckhrad,
~ fool, for 1t docs no inIurc him in hi, pro.
ie--i.u. The court held that one can be a
good Ilrson and great fool, but otherwise Of
90 attorney. II has been adjudgcd that to
call justice Of the peace blockhcad, ass, etc.
b. not a SANDER for which an action will lie.
because note the distinction he was not
accused Of any corruption in his employment,
~ any illdcsign or principle; "And il was
was hi, fault, said the court, THAT he was
hIockhead, ass, etc; for he cannot be other.
wise than his Maker made HIM but. il he had
been a wise man, and wicked principle, were
charged upon him when he had them not an
action would have lain; for, though a man
cannot be wiser, he may be honestcr than he
is. tlIolt, 653j
You cannot say OF a churchwardcn, ole
diverted himself on Sunday, when he ought to
be in the house OF God, fur these word,
charge a breach Of duty. lMoorc vs. BloS.
ham, Irish Term Rep, gI.) If you are a
church tnptnI.r bp,y4ygr Won ,ar
course Of religious discipline, speak word,
concerning church member, that would, un-
der other circumstances, he actionablc. And
this, too, without telling him privately his
fault Thu, you can say, Gle has committed
forgery Jarvis vs. Hathaway, John,
I7gJ Neither are the words, esquire O. is a
rogue, actonable, If it does, not appear that
they were spoken Of him in his official capa-
city. Il Johns, Cases, roo
1t wa, held no SANDER to say, "The justice,
Of the peace do not understand more than this
jug the statute OF excise, except Mir Hunt, nor
have nothing to do with it, and the said Hunt
understands but part, nor one in twenty the
parliament men that made il. Il Keble,
494) ON thi, case you might risk it to say Of
a member OF your legislature that he did not
understand the law, that he had made, and
this, even though you could not Justify.
1t may happen to YOU sometime to be a
party to an action; if yuu are successful, that
of itself will be sufficient. If you are defeated.
it undoubtedly will be because your opponent
and his witnesses have sworn falsely If YOU
are 50 incautious as to call them ''pcrjurcrs,"
you will lay yourself liable to another action,
but you can say they are "forsworn," that
they have sworn falsely" that ''thcy have
taken a false oath, or "havc sworn to a lie, "
without mourning any liability, and most of
those that hear you will not notice the differ.
encc between these sayings and the word
'perjurcrs.' There are some decisions that
hold that you can call man pcrjurer, if at
the same time YOU give a reason for so doing
and this reason mpute not fclony-thus, You
can say, ''Mr b. is pcriured old knavc. and |
that is to be proved by stake parting the
lands of n. and w. :" for, it is As much as to |
aly, Thou art p riurcd knave. but none in
the world can prove it, which will not bear
an action. So it is in this case, the proof Of !!
The perjury being referred to a stake, which is |
a thing inSensiblc, and incapable of producing |
any proof (Yelverton, Io) There once |
lived in this state a man who knew his right
10 SANDER and availed himself of il. He boldly |
said Morgan swore to a lie, but, | am not
liable because have not said in what suit he
testified, ~ and the court held the words not
lctionablc. CIalor, 26;.)
If your opponent. OF any one in his behalf |
mas made an affidavit YOU can in your affidavit |
,ay that he has committed "perury." or
rank perjury" T. SandC. 1851 When YOU
IRE on the winess.stand testiyinp. YOU can
voluntarily, for your own purpose. and even
naliciously, dcfamc your adversary and hi,
Witnesses in any manner that yo,S ingenuity
md malice can suggest; in other words.
witness is not responsible in civil action for
my reflection on another made while giving
evidence, and this even though done after his
examination is finished, but before leaving the
stand Let me caution YOU, however. TO he.
ware OF the Judge. for if YOU 90 TOO far he may
commit YOU for contempt il would he, we'll
before going upon the witness.stapd,
o instruct your lawyer to ask YOU such cues.
ions that, in answering them, YOU can avail
yourself of your privilege as witness to graf.
fy any malice that you may have against your
opponent, or any of his witnesses.
Jones once said to three men who had given
violence against him. zone Of YOU is per.
urcd;' and upon an action brought by one of
hem, it was adiudCed that no action law; but
his is doubtful law in this state.
If YOU are beaten in this action. and think !,
vas owing to your attorney, want of skill
you can say that he acted like fool in Thai
particular case; but TO say Of a stock broker.
3 lie is a lame duck" is actionabe. In talk
ug Of an attorney and his skill in his profes.
ion, YOU cannot say, 4" He cannot read !
complaints" and having said il. the court will
not suppose that the attorney is ill-sipbted mr.
hat the complaint is ill.written. but will sun.
,ose that the words were intended Of any com.
,laint. Il Keble, 7Iol Perhaps YOU might
sk saving il il you should carefully leave out
my reference to the attorneys prolessian, for
he court allowed Richardson to say of King.
' lie is a cheating rogue and a cheating
,nave;" il not appearing there was any special
elerence to Kings Office: the court thus hold
ny that that was the gist of the action. and
must be proved in evidence. q Keble. a6sl
YET the court held in the case of Baker vs.
\iorphew, Keble 2o2, that the words.
u Morphew hath no more Judgment in the law
han Master Cheney's bull,H spoken of an
attorney while talking about his profession,
we're actionable, although it was not averred
hat Cheyney had bull, for the scandal IS
greater il he hath none. /, is true the court
4 L.. -