Case Name: Stanley vs. Brit
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1827-03
Citations: 1 Mart. & Yer. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stanley vs. Brit.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
Stanley vs. Brit.
In Error.
A good cause of action, though imperfectly stated, will be aided by verdict.
-In slander for words, not actionable in themselves, a colloquium is necessary to point them to the object to which they relate; but it is notindispensible, that the colloquiufti should precede the statement of the words.
Stanley brought his action, for slanderous words, in the county court of Perry, against Brit. After the usual inducement of good character, &c., the declaration sets out, “that the plaintiff, Stanley, had been sworn as a witness, in a cause in the said county court of Perry county, and gave testimony; yet the defendant, maliciously intending, &c., and to cause it to he suspected, that he, the plaintiff, had been guilty of perjury, and to subject him to the pains, &c., heretofore, to wit, at the county, &c., falsely and maliciously, in the hearing of divers good citizens, did publicly speak and report the following false, slanderous and malicious words, that he, the plaintiff, had sworn to lies, in open court as aforesaid, of and concerning the plaintiff’s testimony, which was given in on oath, in open court, in the county and state aforesaid: in one other cause, where the state was plaintiff, and one Coulter defendant, that he, (meaning the plain- Ixff,) had sworn to lies; thereby, and then meaning, that the said plaintiff, in giving in his testimony before the court, at the county aforesaid, had committed wilful and corrupt perjury; and farther saying, he could prove the same, by reason of which, &c.”
Pleas of not guilty and justification, replication and issues were entered upon the docket in brief.
In the county court, there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; and an appeal, by the plaintiff, to the circuit court, where the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for three hundred dollars. Reasons were filed in arrest of judgment, and, upon argument, the judgment was arrested; from which judgment an appeal, in the nature of a writ of error, was prosecuted to this court.

Opinion:
Peck, J.
delivered the opinion of Lhe court, (absent, Crabb,. J.) The principal objection relied on by the defendant in error, is, that there is no sufficient colloquium laid in the declaration. Where the words charged, are not, in. themselves, actionable, and where it is necessary to point them to some specific object, to which they ought to relate, then a colloquium is necessary to apply the words, in order to give effect to their meaning and intended application; but it is not indispensable, in such a case, that the colloquium should precede the statement of the words spoken, although it is certainly more consistent with the precedents so to form the averment. Suppose the words charged, not to be actionable in themselves, then the record presents a case where the cause of action is defectively stated. It is to be regretted, that when matter could have been condensed in so small a compass, (if legal precision had been regarded,) that the statements here are so diffusively made, as to render it difficult to collect what was intended. A slight transposition, however, of the words charged, without the addition of a single word, will give the meaning intelligibly. Thus — the plaintiff had been sworn to, and did give testimony in a suit in open court; and the defendant, to cause it to be suspected, that the plaintiff had been guilty of perjury, said concerning the plaintiff's testimony as aforesaid given in on oath, that the plaintiff had "sworn-to lies in open court, thereby meaning," &c. This proves, thatas to the first set of words, it is but an imperfect statement of the cause of action, which is aided by the verdict.
The jury have, by their verdict, found the malice, the speaking of the words, their application and that they were false. The case gains strength, on the plea of justification ; had that plea been drawn out in form, no question could have been raised, after the finding of the jury. Copeland vs. Gregory, sup. court Knoxville. For the present, we will not say, that a plea of justification, put in thus briefly, should be taken as one in form; it is sufficient to say, that the defendant has had the benefit of the defence of justification, and upon that defence has failed. This, also, shows, that in all probability the merits of the case have been attained ; and it would be going a great length to say, when the defendant has failed upon trial, to urge home upon the plaintiff the crime of .perjury, that he shall arrest the judgment, and subject the plaintiff to the costs of a tedious suit through all the courts below. It would require a strong caseto induce us to do so. Reverse the judgment; and proceeding here to give such judgment as the circuit court should have given, let judgment be rendered on the finding of the jury, with costs, &c.
Judgment reversed.
Authorities cited—1 Haywood's Rep. 116, 3 Cain's Rep. 73, 12 Mass. Rep 497, 13 John. Rep. 48, Cowper's Rep. 275, 1 Chitty's Plead. 381-2, 2 do. 257,