
    BREWER vs. WEAKLEY.
    
      Clarksville,
    
    
      Sep. 1807.
    Slander. Appeal from the county court having original exclusive jurisdiction.
    The words spoken were “he committed a misdemeanor in the state of N. Carolina, for which he was arraigned and tried for his life,” that “he was arraigned at the bar is the state of N. Carolina, and I will show it in black and white.”
    To speak such things of a candidate as will cause others not to vote for him, actionable.
    The declaration then proceeded to state that there was an election to be held for Lieut. Col. commandant of the county of Dickson, that the words were spoken with view to injure the plaintiff in his election and good name, per quod many voters refused to vote for him.
    A witness having been called, was asked what effect the report had upon the election.
    The question was objected to.
    
      Per Curiam. But one case respecting an election is recollected at present, which is in L,R's. reports, and that as well as can be recollected was a suit brought by a freeholder whose vote was refused.
    That was with respect to a member of Parliament, but no difference in principle can be perceived in the case. The loss of an election in both cases, must be conceived injurious, for which the law will afford redress—If it were an injury to the voter, to be deprived of his vote, tending to the loss of his favorite candidate, it would surely be an injury to that candidate to be deprived of votes by defamation.
    The heart which is nourished by the blood issuing from the wounds if mangled reputation, ought to be mended by the wholesome correction of law, if neither moral nor religious precept can effect it.
    The rule as to evidence, seems to be, that a witness must generally depose as to his knowledge of facts. In some cases however, evidence of common reputation is received ; this case however is believed to be not of the latter kind, the witness ought to state whether to his knowledge of belief, founded on reasons offered, the report was the cause of the plaintiff’s losing votes, and how many. Two witnesses were offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing that one of the plaintiff's witnesses had acknowledged, he had received money of the plaintiff for swearing tor him.
    
      Overton Justice. This testimony which is intended to show, that one of the plaintiff's witnesses has forsworn himself cannot, as it occurs to me be received, To impeach a man’s credit when on oath, his general reputation as to swearing may be inquired into, but not to descend so particular facts, for it cannot be supposed that witnesses could be prepared to meet such imputations, there being no notice on record. As between parties to a suit, the pleadings completely apprise them of the points to be discussed, but not so of witnesses.
    Powel J. was not decided,
    but it seemed to him that any evidence relating to the same subject, about which the witness has been deposing to-day, may be received.
    Campbell J. tacite.
    The witnesses were qualified, and deposed that they heir the plaintiff's witness say, that he had received a part of his attendance of the plaintiff, by whom he was summoned.
    Per Curiam.
    There was no impropriety id the plaintiff's paying his witness, it would be laudable, in any case, but in some cases where witnesses are poor, it is honourable.
    
      Smith for the defendant.
    In order to sustain this action, if must be proved that the plaintiff lost his election by the report ; one, two, or even ten votes might not have occasioned the loss of the election.
   Campbell J.

In relation to the loss of the plaintiff’s election, he ought not to complain to a court of Justice. The nature of our government is such, that every citizen ought to be free to canvass the virtues, vices, and talents of any candidate for office, nor for any thing that is said on such occasions ought an action to lie. Powel J. was inclined to think that the words were actionable in themselves, without a per quod. The nature of our government will not authorise any man, under any circumstances, to slander the reputation of another.

Overton J.

A special verdict has been proposed, to which I have no objection. Slander is no more justifiable, when spoken of man with a view to his election, than on any other occasion. Unhappy indeed would any people be, where in the exercise of one right, you destroy as important a one.

The enjoyment, of a fair & unsullied reputation, certainly the greatest blessing a rational being can enjoy in this sublunary state of existence; an attempt to deprive a person of it, ought, and must, in all civilized states and nations, be considered as a serious injury.

In the exercise of elective rights, it is immoral to slander a candidate. Let his talents, his virtues, & such vices as are likely to effect his public character, be freely discussed, but no falsehoods be propagated. In the course of the argument, it has been stated that the plaintiff should prove by voters, the loss of his election. This, consistent with the principles of our government cannot be done, as it would seem. The constitution provides that votes shall be given by ballot, and hence it results, that we cannot compel a voter to disclose whom he voted for. If he does it voluntarily, his evidence may be received. There fore proof of the loss of an election, cannot be required. I am strongly inclined to think, that if the loss of votes on that ground is proved, the law will consider it as an injury, but then the words must be actionable in themselves.

Verdict for Plaintiff.

If with a view to an election, a person should falsely, maliciously, & scandalously, report of a candidate a charge, importing a crime, for which his life, or limb, might be jeopardized, he ought to be responsible, and for more than ordinary damages, if votes were lost.

Reasons in arrest of Judgment which were overruled at December term 1808 vide 4 Bos. & Pul, 47.  