Tindle v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | TINDLE & WIFE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. NICHOLS, Defendant in Error. |
1. In an action of slander, for a charge of false swearing before a grand jury, where the defendant justifies by pleading the truth of the charge, a grand juror cannot (under sections 15 and 17 of article 3 of the act concerning practice and proceedings in criminal cases,) be permitted to testify how the plaintiff swore before the grand jury.
Error to Cedar Circuit Court.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
F. P. Wright, for plaintiff in error.
The court erred in requiring the grand jurors to testify and disclose the evidence given by Mrs. Tindle before the grand jury.
W. H. Otter, for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs bring their action for slanderous words spoken by defendant of and concerning the wife of the plaintiff. The defendant justifies the speaking of the words by alleging their truth; that the plaintiff's wife, as a witness before the grand jury, did swear falsely in a certain matter then under the investigation of the grand jury of Cedar county. There is no objection to the plaintiff's petition or to the defendant's answer.
On the trial of the case, the defendant, in order to prove his answer, introduced several of the grand jurors as witnesses. These witnesses were called on to state what the plaintiff's wife had testified to before the grand jury in relation to the subject matter mentioned in the defendant's answer.
The plaintiff's counsel objected to these grand jurors testifying. The grand jurors themselves also claimed to be excused and exempted from detailing the facts stated before them in this matter, but the court overuled the objections and required the witnesses to testify in regard to what the plaintiff's wife had sworn to as a witness before them, as members of the grand jury. To this the plaintiffs excepted, and file their bill of exceptions.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which motion being overruled, exceptions were taken, and the plaintiffs bring the case here by writ of error.
1. The only question for our consideration arises upon the ruling of the court below, in regard to the admissibility of the grand jurors as witnesses. This is a grave question, and it has had the serious consideration of the court; and we are of opinion that these witnesses should not have been required or permitted to disclose the evidence given before them as grand jurors; that the court below erred in this matter and its judgment must be reversed.
The fifteenth section of the third article of our statute concerning practice and proceedings in criminal cases, and the seventeenth section of the same, have an important relation to this subject, and I will here notice these provisions.
The fifteenth section is as follows: “Members of the grand jury may be required by any court to testify whether the testimony of a witness examined before such jury is consistent with or different from the evidence given by such witness before such court; and they may also be required to disclose the testimony given before them by any person, upon a complaint against such person, for perjury, or upon his trial for such an offence.” The seventeenth section: “No grand juror shall disclose any evidence given before the grand jury, nor the name of any witness who appeared before them, except when lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto,” etc.
Thus stands the statute law. In what cases, then, can a grand juror be lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto? Such as are embraced in the fifteenth section cited above, and such only. This fifteeeth section specifies these cases, and the bare specification excludes all other cases not enumerated. These cases are, first, “Whether the testimony of a witness examined before such grand jury is consistent with or different from the evidence given by such witness before such court; and, secondly, may be required to disclose the testimony given before them by any person, upon a complaint against such person for perjury, or upon his trial for perjury.”
These are the cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shawley
...such questions they are not competent witnesses, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 3533 and 3535, Revised Statutes 1929. [Tindle v. Nichols, 20 Mo. 326; State v. Baker, 20 Mo. 339; State v. Grady, 84 Mo. l.c. 224; State v. Cole, 145 Mo. l.c. 673, 47 S.W. l.c. 896; State v. Faulkner......
-
State v. Shawley
......On. such questions they are not competent witnesses,. notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 3533 and 3535,. Revised Statutes 1929. [ Tindle v. Nichols, 20 Mo. 326; State v. Baker, 20 Mo. 339; State v. Grady, 84 Mo. l. c. 224; State v. Cole, 145 Mo. l. c. 673, 47 S.W. l. c. 896; ......
-
Mannon v. Frick
...S.W. 643; and, indeed, the statutes themselves have considerably eroded the strict common law rule. In the very early case of Tindle v. Nichols, 1855, 20 Mo. 326, the court held that a grand juryman should not be permitted to testify in a civil slander suit as to what the defendant said bef......
-
State v. Faulkner
...grand jury, and this last-mentioned section had been construed to prohibit such testimony even under the process of the courts. Tindle v. Nichols, 20 Mo. 326; Beam v. Link, 27 Mo. 261. As to the scope of the inquiry which the grand jury may take in examining a witness in its effort to ferre......