4 a felonious forgery,' as to say one forged words and sentiments for Silas Wright; and to deny having signed a note, or authorized his name being indorsed, does not import a charge of forgery;3 nor does a charge, if you have any letters from them, you forged them; or, I never put my name on the back of the note, but he must have done it. A charge of altering books may impute forgery. Exhibiting a note and saying, "Do you think it is G.'s handwriting?" may import a charge of forgery;' and so the words, "He altered the note to get better security, to bind me to pay it." The words, I would give five dollars if I could write as well as that—I never signed the note, do not necessarily impute forgery. But a letter charging plaintiff with having subscribed defendant's name to a receipt without authority, and to defraud him out of the money, and adding, It is not my purpose to call hard names— the statute fixes the name and punishment, imputes forgery.10 1. Fornication.-To allege that a woman is not a decent woman," or a bad character, a loose character," or has raised a family of children to a negro, does not amount to a charge of fornication ;3 but to say of an 1 Alexander v. Alexander, 9 Wend. 141. See § 167, post. 3 Andrews v. Woodmansee, 15 Wend. 232. Mills v. Taylor, 3 Bibb, 469. B Atkinson v. Scammon, 2 Fost. 40. 'Gay v. Homer, 13 Pick. (30 Mass.) 535. 'Gorham v. Ives, 2 Wend. 534. *Harmon v. Carrington, 8 Wend. 488. Andrews v. Woodmansee, 15 Wend. 232. 10 Snyder v. Andrews, 6 Barb. 43. unmarried woman, she had a child and buried it in the garden, imputes fornication. To say "Malvina [plaintiff] has been to swear a young one," fairly conveys the idea that the plaintiff had been guilty of fornication. So do, with proper innuendoes, the words "A. caught them [plaintiff and B.] together in the packing-room."3 "There is no offense which can be conveyed in so many multiplied forms and figures as that of incontinence. The charge is seldom made, even by the most vulgar and obscene in broad and coarse language." + 4 m. Kill-Killed-Killing.-The words kill, killed, and killing, unexplained, have a felonious signification.s The words, "I think the business ought to have the most rigid inquiry, for he murdered his first wife, that is, he administered improperly medicines to her for a certain complaint, which was the cause of her death," after verdict for plaintiff, held actionable as imputing a charge of manslaughter." n. Knave.-Imports dishonesty.? o. Known.-Stating plaintiff is about to commence an action, but that he will not bring it to trial in a particular county because he is known there, amounts 1 Worth v. Butler, 7 Blackf. 251. See § 172, post. Scandalous and familiar converse with a woman can only mean illegal connection. (Patterson v. Patterson, 15 Law Times, 539.) Patterson v. Wilkinson, 55 Maine, 42. 3 Evans v. Tibbins, 2 Phila. 210. 4 Duncan, J., Walton v. Singleton, 7 S. & R. 457. 'Carroll v. White, 33 Barb. 620; Button v. Heyward, 8 Mod. 24; Cooper v. Smith, Cro. Jac. 423; Hays v. Hays, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 402; Taylor v. Casey, Minor (Ala.) 258; Ecart v. Wilson, 10 Serg. & R. 44; Johnson v. Robertson, 4 Porter, 486; Chandler v. Holloway, Id. 18; Edsall v. Russell, 5 Scott N. R. 801; 2 Dowl. N. S. 614; 4 Man. & G. 1090. Ford v. Primrose, 5 Dowl. & R. 287. See § 168, post. to a charge that the plaintiff is in bad repute in that county.' p. Larceny. The words, A man that would do that would steal, do not impute a larceny; but to say one was whipped for stealing hogs, does.3 You will steal, imputes a charge of larceny. The words "he is mighty smart after night," and "put him in the dark, and he would get it all," spoken with reference to a dispute which existed between plaintiff and defendant, relative to the division of a certain tanyard; held not to impute the crime of larceny, and not actionable.s I have reason to suppose that many of the flowers of which I have been robbed are growing on your premises, held to amount to a charge of larceny. The words, "my table-cloths are gone, and you know where they are gone. If you will bring them back, I will say nothing about it. My husband has gone down town to get a warrant to search your house and imprison you," impute a crime." q. Liar. The words, "this is not the first time the idea of falsehood and B. [plaintiff] have been associated in the minds of many honest men," import that B. is a liar.3 r. Made away with.-A charge of making away with does not amount to a charge of larceny." 1 Cooper v. Greely, I Denio, 347. ? Stees v. Kemble, 27 Penn. 112; and see Stolen, p. 207, post. 3 Holly v. Burgess, 9 Ala. 728. 4 Cornelius v. Van Slyck, 21 Wend. 70. Kirksey v. Fike, 29 Ala. 206. • Williams v. Gardiner, 1 M. & W. 245; and see note 2, p. 185, ante. 9 Hess v. Jockley, 25 Iowa, 9. Brooks v. Bemiss, 8 Johns. 455. The words, "Uncle Daniel must settle for some of my logs he has made away with," do not of themselves amount to a charge of larceny. (Brown v. Brown, 2 Shep. 317; Connick v. Wilson, 2 Kerr (New Brun.) 496. A charge of carrying s. Murder. To say one is guilty of the death of another imports a charge of murder. The word guilty implies a malicious intent, and can be applied only to something which is universally allowed to be a crime. But to say one was the cause of another's death does not import a crime, for a physician may be the cause of a man's death, and very innocently.' t. Packing.—The charge of "packing a jury" imports the corrupt selection of a jury.2 u. Perjury. To publish a direct and positive contradiction of what a witness, at a certain trial, had sworn that A. had said; held, not to amount to a charge of perjury. Nor do the words, Thou wert detected of perjury, imply being guilty of perjury. Words charging a grand juror with having "forsworn himself by neglecting or refusing to present an offense within his knowledge," do not amount to a charge of perjury, or any indictable offense. To say one is forsworn, was indicted for it, and compounded for it, imputes perjury; for the alleged compounding is equivalent to a confession of the indictment being true. And to say, Thou art forsworn, and I will away corn does not impute felony, but trespass. (Stitzell v. Reynolds, 59 Penn. 488.) Go home and steal more potatoes from Peggy's field, held actionable, as the potatoes might have been severed from the soil, and the words implied a prior stealing. (Hunter v. Hunter, 25 Up. Can. Q. B. 145.) post. 1 Peake v. Oldham, Cowp. 275; Miller v. Buckdon, 2 Bulst. 10. * Mix v. Woodward, 12 Conn. 262. See § 168, 'Steele v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 214; see post, note to § 171; Perselly v. Bacon, 20 Miss. 330; Kern v. Towsley, 51 Barb. 385; Spooner v. Keeler, 51 N. Y. 527. 'Vin. Abr. Actions for Words, P, a, 21. The words," Thou didst take a false oath before Justice Scawen," may mean not a justice of the peace named Scawen, but one named Justice Scawen. (Garnett v. Derry, 3 Lev. 166; note to § 177, post; and Call v. Foresman, 5 Watts, 331, in § 321, post.) * McAnnally v. Williams, 3 Sneed, 26. Gilberd v. Rodd, 3 Bulst. 304. set thee on the pillory, or I will have his ears cropt, imply perjury. Loss of life was occasioned by the collision of two steamboats. An inquest was afterwards held, and a person named Granger, who was on board of one of the steamboats at the time of the accident, gave his evidence. The defendant, in giving an account of the accident and inquest, stated: "Had requisite means been employed, the lives of the two children might have been saved, in spite of the story of Mr. Granger, who swore through thick and thin, and who, although asleep at the moment of the accident, had yet sufficient time to dress himself and assist his wife:" held, that the language did not charge Granger with perjury.2 The following was published by A.: Charge 4. Refusing to correct G. C. in his statement as a witness before Esq. B., when I believe he, J. C., knew his, G. C.'s, statement was not true." Held, that this writing, when shown by proper averments to have been applied by A. to the testimony of G. C., on the trial of a cause, imputed perjury to G. C., and was actionable.3 v. Pilfering. The term pilfering imports a crime.* w. Plundered.-The term plundered does not import a felonious taking." x. Poison. Saying of a surgeon that he did poison the wound of his patient, may mean that he poisoned 1 Williams v. Bickerton, Het. 63; Vin. Abr. Actions for Words, F, a, II. "I could prove J. S. perjured, if I would," implies that J. S. committed perjury. (Id.) Reg. v. Marshall, 2 Jur. 254; and see note to § 137, ante. $ Coombs v. Rose, 8 Blackf. 155. Beckett v. Sterrett, 4 Blackf. 499; contra, see Carter z. Andrews, 16 Pick. 1. 5 Carter v. Andrews, 16 Pick. 1. |