Case Name: Steele vs. Phillips
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1850-04
Citations: 10 Hum. 461
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steele vs. Phillips.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 461–463

Head Matter:
Steele vs. Phillips.
Phillips brought an action against Steele for slander based on a charge of perjury. Steele justified the charge in the following words: “The defendant avers that said plaintiff, in swearing to a bill of complaint in the chancery court at Dresden, against Sam Steele, executor of John Steele, swore falsely, by stating in said bill that said estate owned nothing, when said plaintiff knew at the time he swore to said bill that the estate was indebted,” &c. Upon this specification the circuit judge properly refused to hear proof, for it gave the plaintiff no information of the indebtedness to be proved. A plea of justification in slander should be as specific and certain as a bill of indictment for the offence charged by the slander. The fact in this case that plaintiff took issue on this defective plea, does not vary the case.
Phillips sued Steele in case for slander, in the circuit court of Weakley. Verdict for plaintiff for seven thousand dollars, and judgment thereupon by the presiding judge, Read. The defendant appealed. \
J. B. Williams, for Steele.
Etheridge, for Phillips.

Opinion:
Tühley, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of slander brought in the circuit court .of Weakley county, by the defendant in error, Thos. H. Phillips, against the plaintiff in error, George R. Steele. The words charged to have been spoken by the defendant in the court below, as set forth in the first count, are as follows: "Thomas H. Phillips has sworn a lie in filing some bills in the chancery court, and there are the bills to show for themselves," inuendo, &c., the declaration explaining and applying the words properly. In the second count, the words are charged as follows: "Thomas H. Phillips has sworn to a lie in filing some bills in the chancery court, and the bills are in the clerk's office at Dresden, and can be seen at any lime," inuendo, as above.
The defendant pleaded a special plea of justification, in which he makes two specifications of perjury which he alleges was committed by the plaintiff in swearing to the bills filed in the chancery court at Dresden. Upon this plea there was issue, which was found for the plaintiff. The first specification is made with sufficient certainty, and proof was heard upon it by the circuit judge; and it was found against the plea. The second specification is in the words following: "and the said defendant further avers, that said plaintiff, in swearing to a bill of complaint by said plaintiff and his wife, Elizabeth, in the chancery court at Dresden, Tenn., against Samuel Steele, executor of the estate of John Steele, deceased, swore falsely, by stating, among other things stated in said bilb that the estate of the said John Steele owed no debts, when said plaintiff knew well at the time he took said oath, in swearing to said bills, that said estate of said John Steele was indebted; which said fact was material to obtaining an injunction, and would be material upon the hearing of said cause." Upon this specification, the circuit judge refused to hear proof; and we think correctly. The specification is too vague and uncertain to form an issue upon. The law requires as great nicety in assigning a perjury in a plea of justification to an action of slander, as it does in a bill of indictment. No man would be put upon his trial upon a bill of indictment as loosely framed as is the assignment of perjury in the plea of justification.
The, plaintiff having taken issue upon the plea does not vary the case; there is, we have seen, two special assignments of perjury in the plea, the finding of either of which, provided they had been both well made, would have justified the defendant in speaking the words for which he was sued; but, the first is made with sufficient certainty, and is good in law; the second is so vague and uncertain as to be a nullity, and was properly considered by the court as constituting no part of the plea, which was a good plea, so far as the first assignment of perjury was concerned, without regard to the second assignment; it was therefore properly rejected, and proof properly refused under it.
There is then no error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.