Case Name: Lanning against Shute
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1819-05
Citations: 5 N.J.L. 553
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Lanning against Shute.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
*Lanning against Shute.
IN DEBT.
LANNING- brought, in the city of New-YorJc, an action against Shute for slander; and obtained verdict and judgment. He then commenced an action of debt, upon the judgment in this court. The defendant, Shute, pleaded. 1. Nul tiel record. 2. Nil debet. Annexed to this second plea, was a notice that he would give the truth of the words in evidence, and also certain circumstances which took place at the time of the trial. The plaintiff demurred, and there was a joinder in demurrer.
Ghetwood
moved to strike out this notice of particulars, upon the ground that a part of the matters it contained would have been fit for a motion for a new trial; and the rest, a defence in the original suit; but the judgment in New- York wa,s conclusive of the matters, which were the foundation of it.
Scudder answered.
If the plea, nil debet be good, the court will not strike out the notice; and the validity of the plea must abide the decision on the demurrer.
S. C. post 778.

Opinion:
Kirkpatrick C. J.
The plea and notice are one thing, and you must take both together. You cannot nullify the plea by striking off the notice.
Ghetwood thought it necessary to get rid of the bill of particulars, before he could get to the demurrer.
Southard J.
The plea and notice both raise the same question.
By the court:
The whole must be considered on the demurrer. We cannot now strike off the notice.