Landers v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 April 1886
• Citation: 78 Me. 212,3 A. 463
• Parties: LANDERS v. SMITH.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

3 A. 463

78 Me. 212

LANDERS

v. SMITH.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed April 5, 1886.

On report from superior court, Kennebec county.

This is an action on the case for perjury, brought under Rev. St. Me. c. 82, § 137. The writ in the original action was dated July 18, 1875, and the trial was had at the March term of the supreme judicial court, Kennebec county, 1877, resulting in a verdict for defendant. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, April 21, 1877. At the March term, supreme judicial court, Kennebec county, 1883, the plaintiff filed a petition for review, and at the October term, 1883, the petition was "dismissed,—no cost." The present suit was brought March 13, 1884, and entered at the June term, 1884.

Winfield S. Choate, for plaintiff.

J. W. Spaulding and F. J. Baker, for defendant.

EMERY, J. Courts will always endeavor to ascertain the real meaning and purpose of the legislature in enacting a new statute. In such endeavor they are not confined to the words of the particular statute in question. The general policy of previous legislation, and the general principles of law and equity, are to be considered, for there is a presumption (overcomable, of course, by sufficient words) that the legislature did not intend any marked departure from such policy and principles. The results of any particular construction are to be anticipated, and if such results will be anomalous, unjust, or even inconvenient, it is a legitimate and strong argument against the construction contended for. It will be presumed the legislature did not intend any such results. The language of a statute would need to be very strong and clear to cause a belief that such was the intent. The real meaning of a statute is to be ascertained and declared, even though it seem to conflict with the words of the statute. See language of Chief Justice Peters in Holmes v. Paris, 75 Me. 561.

The cause of action created by Rev. St. c. 82, § 137, is the obtaining a judgment against another by perjury of a witness. Before that statute was passed the only remedy of the injured party was by review under the second specification of section 1, c. 89, Rev. St. He was entitled to a review of the action if he could show to the court that the testimony was false, and that he was surprised by it at the trial, or by showing that the witness had been convicted of perjury therefor. The limitation of this remedy, however, was three years. The general limitation for all remedies (there being, of course, a few exceptions) was six years or less. It was the policy of the law and legislation to fix short limitation for special remedies. This statute gave a new and additional remedy. The injured party may now bring his action directly against the witness, or he may apply for a review on discovering the perjury. He must, however, do one or the other...