
    Lecroy v. The State.
    1. Under a statute (Code, §4372) making it an offence to use to or of another opprobrious words, the accused may be convicted on an indictment charging conjunctively that the words were used to and of another, though the evidence shows that they were used of but not to him, the other requisites of the offence being properly charged and fully established.
    2. In making his unsworn statement before a municipal court in defence to a charge of breach of the peace in violation of an ordinance, a person is not privileged to use of another and in his presence opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace, unless the matter to which the words relate has or he honestly believes it has some relevancy to the charge on trial or to a legitimate answer or defence thereto The Queen v. Hutchins, 7 Irish Common Law Rep. 425. And after the presiding officer of the court has ruled them out of order, they should be treated as presumptively irrelevant, nothing to the contrary appearing. A repetition of them, after such ruling, with no evidence tending to show that the speaker honestly believed them to be relevant or tending to vindicate his good faith in the persistent use of them, may constitute a misdemeanor, within the section of the code above referred to.
    3. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    May 18, 1892.
    Criminal law. Opprobrious words. Before Judge McWhorter. Hart superior court. March term, 1892.
    Indictment for using opprobrious and abusive languageto and of one Williams and in his presence, tending to cause a breach of the peace. The question is, whether a verdict of guilty is supported by evidence showing as follows: The defendant and one Williams were brought before the mayor of Hartwell for trial, charged with a breach of the peace, in violation of the ordinances of that town. Williams pleaded guilty. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and after the introduction of the evidence, made a statement in his defence, in which, speaking of Williams, he said, “He swore a lie,” referring to a former trial in which Williams was a witness. After being called to order by the mayor, he repeated the language. It was used to the mayor as a court trying the case. Williams was one of a number of people in the room at the time, and heard what the defendant said.
    McCurry & Proeeitt, by brief, for plaintiff in error.
    W. M. Howard, solicitor-general, by brief, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed,.  