Prior v. . Colbold, (1793)
Court: Court of King's Bench
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: HYDE, C. J.
Filed: Jul. 05, 1793
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case for these words. If Robert Prior would justify his answer, which he made to a bill preferred by Tinson against Tinson. I would prove him perjured upon his oath. The answer had been disallowed for insufficiency; all points in the bill not being answered. Bulstrod . The action does not lie; for he is not directly charged with perjury. T. 17 Jac. B. R., Sparkman's case . He is a thief, or I. S. is perjured; held not actionable; the words not being directly affirmative. So 18 Jac. B. R., Margar
Summary: Case for these words. If Robert Prior would justify his answer, which he made to a bill preferred by Tinson against Tinson. I would prove him perjured upon his oath. The answer had been disallowed for insufficiency; all points in the bill not being answered. Bulstrod . The action does not lie; for he is not directly charged with perjury. T. 17 Jac. B. R., Sparkman's case . He is a thief, or I. S. is perjured; held not actionable; the words not being directly affirmative. So 18 Jac. B. R., Margare..
More
I am clearly of the opinion of my brother JONES. To justify is toaffirm.
Afterwards a doubt arose; as the plaintiff had not averred that he had justified his answer after the words spoken. But he had judgment. 1 Roll., 78, 2 Cr., 350.
Source: CourtListener
