Schmidt v. Witherick

• Decision Date: 30 May 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 448,29 Minn. 156
• Parties: Peter Schmidt v. Peter Witherick
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

12 N.W. 448

29 Minn. 156

Peter Schmidt v. Peter Witherick

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 30, 1882

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for McLeod county, Macdonald, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Order reversed.

H. J Peck and M. O. Little, for appellant.

A. P Fitch, for respondent.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Action for slander. The allegations of the complaint, so far as here material, are that "in a conversation with this plaintiff's wife, * * * and * * * in the presence and hearing of" third persons, the defendant spoke and declared "of and concerning the said plaintiff" the following words: "'You have not sworn falsely, but your husband,' (meaning this plaintiff,) 'he' (meaning this plaintiff) 'has sworn falsely in the case with my brother;' meaning that this plaintiff had sworn falsely in a lawsuit between this defendant and his brother." The words charged to have been spoken are not actionable per se. To render words actionable per se, they must impute a crime to the person of whom they are spoken in such terms that, without the aid of an innuendo, the nature of the offence charged is obvious. They must carry upon their face an open and direct imputation of a crime. The crime here attempted to be charged is perjury. Perjury is the wilful giving, under an oath or affirmation, legally imposed, of false testimony material to the issue or point of inquiry. The following elements are essential to constitute this crime: First, the oath must be false; second, it must have been legally imposed; third, the intention must have been wilful.

Now the words charged contain the first of these elements, and the innuendo supplies the second, but the third is lacking unless the term "falsely" implies and includes it. But these words "swear falsely," alone, do not necessarily include the idea of wilful intention. They may mean perfidiously, or merely not truly. Swearing to that which is false, says Kent, C. J., does not necessarily imply that the party has, in judgment of law, perjured himself. It may mean that he has sworn to a falsehood without being conscious, at the time, that it was false. Of course, to say that a man swore falsely may be intended to convey to the minds of the hearers the imputation of perjury, and, when this is so, with the proper averments, they are actionable. This is all that is meant by some of the cases cited by respondent, in which it is said that...