Case Name: The State v. George Perrin
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-11-22
Citations: 3 Brev. 152
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. George Perrin.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
DEC. 1814.
The State v. George Perrin.
The indictment set forth a written libel, “ of and concerning the only daughter of Jane Roachit was proved at the trial, that the libel concerned the daughter of Jane Roach, but not that she was the only daughter. Held, that it was not necessary, in order to shew the application of the libellous writing, to prove that the prosecutrix was an only daughter. [See 2 vol. 474.]
Motion in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial.
Indictment for a libel, tried before Bay, J., in Richland district.
The indictment set forth a written libel, “ of and concerning the only daughter of Jane Roach,” with proper intiendoes and aver-ments. It was proved at the trial, that the libel concerned the daughter of Jane Roach, but not that she was the only daughter of Jane Roach. *
22d Nov., 1814.
Egan, in support of the motion,
contended, that the statement in the indictment, that Mrs. Cox, the prosecutrix, was the only daughter of Mrs. Jane Roach, was a substantial averment, and ought to have been proved; and that the same not having been proved, the verdict ought to have been for the defendant.
Stark, Solicitor, contra,
was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
It was necessary, in order to shew the application of the libellous writing in question, to aver that. Mrs. Cox, the party libelled, was the daughter of Mrs. Roach, but it was not necessary to aver, or state, that she was an only daughter. This part of the averment may be considered as surplusage. It was not material to the criminal charge, and need not have been proved.
[Brevard, J.
There seems to me to be no sufficient legal grounds to support the motions madé in this case, or either of them. The libel is charged to have been published of and concerning the prosecu-trix, Jane Cox, describing her as the only daughter of the widow Roach. The indictment contains an innuendo, shewing the application of the slander, and averring the identity of Mrs. Roach's daughter and the prosecutrix, Mrs. Cox. It was proved that the prosecutrix' is the daughter of the widow Roach ; but it was not proved that she was an only daughter. I think it was unnecessary to state in the inuendo, that she was an only daughter, as it would have beetí sufficiently certain and complete yvithout it. If this was not necessary to support the indictment, it was' not necessary to be proved. Enough was proved to shew the application of the slander, with reasonable certainty, and the rest might be considered as surplusage, and rejected.]
Motion refused.