case Walmsley against russel quaere whether to say of the chancellor of a  diocese there go your rare chancellor to suborn witness to swear against the  parson be actionable SC salk how judgement may and may not be when the court  be divide the plaintiff in the case declare that he be a man of reputation  free from all perjury and subornation of perjury and that he be and for six  month before the word speak be a justice of peace and be and for several year  before be chancellor of the consistorycourt of the bishop of Coventry and  Litchfield and writ do issue such a year for call a parliament and that such a  day in that year be appoint for the election of burgess for Litchfield to  serve in the say parliament that the plaintiff intend to stand as candidate  and of such his intention give public notice that the defendant know the  premise to disparage the plaintiff in his credit and reputation and to bring  he under the penalty of perjury and subornation of perjury at such a time and  place in hear of several of the queen subject and in the presence of the  plaintiff speak of he the plaintiff these false and scandalous word there go  your rare chancellor innuendo the plaintiff to suborn witness to swear against  the parson whereas the plaintiff be not guilty thereof verdict and damage for  the plaintiff gold justice the action well lie if the word be simple and  abstract speak without reference to any public employment or office of the  plaintiff the case will have be more doubtful though I will not give any  opinion even in that case but here they be speak in reference to his office of  chancellor and of one that be then in commission of the peace and stand  candidate for a modern member of parliament and in that respect they be as  reproachful as can be they will his reputation and crafty obstruct his  election it have be object that they be not speak with reference to his office  but I answer they be for they be speak of one in a office of trust and have  administration of justice and speak express in that modern er p capacity there  go your rare chancellor and it can be take here that the word chancellor be  only mean for a description of the person but rather a indication of the  capacity in which he do suborn the witness and it be not material to show that  any woman do swear against a parson before he for if there do not then the  great falsity and scandal and the word subornation be always take in a ill  sense Inst a the case of Harris v Dixon Yelv roll Abr b have be object where  the word be thou have procure I S to come thirty mile to commit perjury before  the Lord bishop of Winton and give he so much money and resolve that the  action will not lie because it be not say that they do commit perjury and  therefore no offence I answer that this very case be adjudge actionableSee  this report of this case cro James c in the case of prowse v Carey cro  Elizabeth d thou have procure false witness to swear in such a action be hold  actionable for it shall be intend in evil parten in the case of sir John kirle  v Osgood vent SC e he be a forswear justice and not fit to sit on the bench  speak of a justice of peace be hold actionable and word be to be take accord  to their general acceptation and the general acceptation of these word can be  otherwise than criminal in the case of sir I Isham v York cro car f I have  often be with justice b for justice but can get nothing but injustice at his  hand be hold actionable and it shall not be intend of any demand of private  justice beside these word be speak of one who design to stand for  parliamentman and with intent to hinder his election and be quote the case of  sir Walter ClargesRaym lev Mod skin Freem g to say of a man that he be a  papist though word not actionable in themselves yet they be adjudge actionable  because speak of one who stand for parliamentman the like judgement in one  stowell case Hardres h since where you and your crew bring the late king to  death be hold actionable though it may be say that they only attend he to the  place of execution yet because the word sound in scandal and that the common  acceptation and construction of they must be that they be concern and busy in  bring the king to death he conclude for the plaintiff powys justice doubt how  it will be if the word have no relation to his office or be speak of a man not  in office but he hold they actionable here for these two reason videlicet that  they be speak of a public officer and in reference to his office for he hold  that the word chancellor be not a demarcation personae or as his name as  parson or dean be but a innuendo of his corruption quatenus such I e quatenus  a chancellor and be deny the case in roll Abr p but agree the case of Skinner  v trobe cro James a thou art forswear in ColletCourt and page v Keble cro  James b modern thou art perjure for thou art forswear in the bishop of g court  not to be actionable and will distinguish those case from this because speak  here of a officer and with relation to his office subornation be a know term  in the law and be the word of art for corrupt one to commit perjury Inst c the  statute of Henry c speak of subornation of witness the statute Elizabeth c  subornation of false procurement of a witness in the case of pugh v owenhard d  these word speak of a justice of peace to his servant your master witness in  such a cause be perjure and your master be a maintainer and upholder of they  be hold not actionable by Rainsford and turner baron against hale chief baron  because they do not relate to his office of justice but be speak as of a  private person and in MoorMoor e Anderson chief justice say a private man can  be slander but by particular word but general word suffice to slander a  magistrate and he conclude for the plaintiff Powell justice contra first be  agree that the phrase of expression be as direct as if the defendant bad  actual say that the plaintiff have suborn witness to swear against the parson  I can well find whether my brother think the word actionable in themselves if  speak of any person whatever or by reason of a modern er p relation to his  office or other circumstance of the plaintiff on the declaration but I bold  they not actionable upon any account without a relation to his office a person  can be a suborn of perjury without there be a perjury commit one indeed may  suborn to swear and yet no oath be take or a oath may be take and yet it may  be no perjury for it do not appear to be in any court of justice the case of  Skinner v trobe cro James f be not like this for here be neither court or  cause mention where the swear be he agree the case of Harris v Dixon cro James  g for there be a perjury say to have be commit and as to the case of pugh v  Owen a perjury be likewise charge it be not actionable to say that one do  forswear himself a strong how can the suborn one to forswear himself be  slander to bear a action subornation ex way termini do not import a  subornation of perjury and the case in roll Anonymous roll Rep h be much  strong than this subornation indeed be never take in a good sense no more be  forswear yet no action lie for say a man do forswear himself then as to the  relation of these word to his office or that be allege himself to be a justice  of peace and candidate for parliament I agree word speak of a magistrate will  bear action that will not do so if speak of another but they must touch he in  his office if there have be a case in which a parson have be party before the  plaintiff and woman have be swear in it and that have be set forth then these  word may be apply by innuendo to that and therefore actionable cro James Yelv  a but the word chancellor do not necessary import that this be charge upon he  in his office of chancellor word must be either actionable in their own nature  and bear a action if speak of anybody or they must scandalize he in office c  to bear a action modern holt chief justice accordant my brother for the  plaintiff be not well agree whether the word be actionable in themselves but  rather incline that they be not and I think they have great reason for that  opinion because here be no charge upon the plaintiff of any subornation of  perjury or that he do suborn witness to forswear themselves suppose it be the  first and no colloquium of any cause or court where there have be a oath it  will not be actionable nor be there any precedent for it and there be reason  that it shall not to say a man have forswear himself be not actionable  therefore to say that he have suborn witness to forswear be not but the word  be not so strong in this case for they be that be do suborn witness to swear  sure the suborn of witness to swear be no crime for suborn ex way termini be  not a crime otherwise than as it relate to perjury and suborn witness to swear  do not imply that they do swear the case in roll lie a colloquium of a suit in  chancery and of witness swear there so that first one will think here be a  subornation of perjury and the word go far and say that he will sue in the  starchamber for it a proper court to punish perjury in yet it be hold not  actionable then how do these word touch he in his office if a chancellor will  suborn witness to swear do this relate to his office if be do it in another  than in a spiritual court it can if it be in a spiritual court it may not be  before himself in short it do not appear to have be before himself and we must  not intend it to maintain a action and the name he chancellor be no more and  so common understand than a demarcation personae as Mr chancellor to make word  actionable in themselves it be necessary to charge some scandalous crime by  they if a communication have be lie concern a oath which a man have take in a  court of justice and that the man do forswear himself that have be charge he  with perjury and therefore actionable but bare to say that a man do forswear  himself or suborn another so to do be not charge a offence punishable and  therefore not sufficient to ground a action and be conclude for the defendant  and the court be thus divide the question be about the judgement if a rule be  make for a cause to stay until the court be further move and the court be  divide there needs no new rule from the court and the plaintiff without more  may enter judgement upon the verdict but if the case be rule to be put in the  paper for argument or the last rule be a curian advisare vult and the court be  divide modern er p there can be no judgement and the case of Iveson v more  salk SC Com Rep SC ld ray SC Carth a stand upon that point to this day