Case Name: M'CLEAN v. FOWLE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1816-11
Citations: 15 F. Cas. 1266
Docket Number: 
Parties: M’CLEAN v. FOWLE.
Judges: (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 15
Pages: 1266–1267

Head Matter:
Case No. 8,691.
M’CLEAN v. FOWLE.
[2 Cranch, C. C. 118.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1816.
Libel — Illegal Voting — Declaration — Proper Averments.
A declaration for a libel charging the plaintiff with an attempt to put two votes iiito the ballot-box at a corporate election, must contain an averment of the by-law under which the election was held.
Action upon the case for a libel charging that a neighbor of the printers had been detected in an attempt to put two votes into tbe ballot-box, and that "the name and the proof are left with the printer.” Verdict for the plaintiff, $271.75.
Mr. Swann, for defendant,
moved in arrest of judgment, and contended, that the publication contained no libellous matter, no reflection on the plaintiff’s moral character, no charge of turpitude, nor does it set forth the election law so as to make it appear that the plaintiff had not a right to put in two votes. This cannot be aided by innuendo. Holt v. Scholefield, 6 Term R. 691. The court cannot judicially notice a by-law not pleaded. 6 Bac. Abr. 375; Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 683; 2 Ohit PI. 256; ISaund. 243; 9 Bac. Abr. “Slander,” 2. There is nothing in the libel to designate the plaintiff as the object of it; and this cannot be aided by innuendo. 4 Coke, 17 b. And the averment in the declaration, that the libel was written of and concerning the plaintiff, does not authorize him to prove by evidence debors tbe libel, that the plaintiff was the person meant.
Mr. Mason and E. J. Lee, for plaintiff,
contended that the whole tenor of the libel showed that it meant to charge the plaintiff with an illegal act, an act of turpitude; and this is sufficient to maintain the action. J’Anson v. Stuart, 1 Term R. 748; Bell v. Stone, 1 Bos. & P. 331; Savile v. Jardine, 2 H. Bl. 531; 5 Coke, 125; King v. Lake, Hardr. 470; King v. Philipps, 6 East, 471.

Opinion:
THE COURT
(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)
took time to consider, and an'ested tbe judgment for want of an averment of tlie by-law respecting the election.