
    Lea and Wife v. Robertson.
    .t. In slander, defendant having-plead justification, the evidence being closed, and having- offered no evidence to support it, shall not he permitted to withdraw this plea.
    2. Words which charged plaintiff with the commission of ‘ ‘ perjury,” are in themselves actionable, although they do not refer to any particular swearing.
    In the Circuit Court of Perry county, Robertson brought an action against Lea and wife, for slanderous words spoken by Mrs Lea of him. The words charged in the first count were, “ he is perjured in the second count “ he has committed perjury,” with other counts, stating other forms of expression. On the trial, after the testimony had been closed, and when the counsel for the plaintiff were commencing their argument to the jury, the defendants asked leave to withdraw their second plea, (which was a plea of justification,) on the ground that they had offered no evidence to support, and did not rely on it. The Court denied the motion, and when the jury were about to retire, instructed them that the plea of justification. when no evidence had been offered to support it, or the defendant failed to prove it, went to aggravate the damages.
    And further instructed the jury, that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have proved that an oath had l> eu sworn before any competent tribunal, or that the charge Of perjury referred to any particular swearing, but that a general charge of perjury was of itself actionable, without proof that an oath had been taken by the plaintiff; to all which the defendants excepted. Verdict and judgement for the plaintiff, and on a writ of error to this Court, Lea and wife assign the matter in the bill of exceptions as error.
    Thoiiington, for plaintiffs.
    GoRpoN, for defendant in error,
    cited 8 Johnson 100, IS Mass. 178.
    
   JUDGE WHITE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ie it be an aggravation of the injury, when an action is brought for slanderous words spoken, to file a plea of justification, without proof to sustain it: the defendant after it has been spread upon the record, read to the jury, and perhaps several wounding attempts made to sustain it, and when he finds that it will not avail, should not be permitted to withdraw it, and thereby delude the jury with the belief that he is disposed to appreciate the feelings and rights of the plaintiff. We believe that the Circuit Court was right in refusing to admit the defendants to withdraw the plea of justification, and in the charge to the jury, that filing this plea went to aggravate the damages. In the other part of the charge, in the instruc" tions to the jury, the Circuit Court was also correct. Words making a general charge of uperjury” are in themselves actionable, without proof that an oath had been taken bv the plaintiff. Le< the judgement be affirmed.

Judge Crenshaw not sitting.  