14 Mich. 340 | Mich. | 1866
Lead Opinion
We are of opinion that the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the second count of the plaintiff’s declaration. The slander alleged consisted in the defendant saying of the plaintiff, he “ has sworn to a damned lie, and I will put him through for it, if it costs me all I am worth.” The only question is, whether these words fairly, to the common understand
We also think that the Court erred in excluding the evidence offered under the first count. The defendant was charged with having accused the plaintiff of swearing falsely in the giving of testimony in a cause pending in the Circuit Court
But in this case the colloquium is averred of evidence given - before an officer acting under an authority which is fully set out; and we must understand the by-standers to have been apprised what this authority was, and that it was insufficient in law, if such was the fact. And we are therefore to see whether the authority set out was sufficient.
It appears by the declaration that the pai'ties to a suit in Chancery had stipulated that the evidence therein might be taken before a notary public named, and had entered a common order based upon this stipulation, that such notary public act as special commissioner for the purpose. The statute (Com. L. § 4338,) empowers any Court of Record to appoint special commissioners before whom depositions may be taken; but it is very questionable whether a common order, entered by consent of parties, and Avithout the intervention or knowledge of the court, can be regarded as such an appointment. The statute (Comp. L. §§ 3995-7,) also provides that a.
The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in holding the second count sufficient, because, while I think the language charged capable of two constructions, it was made certain by a proper averment. I concur fully upon the other points.