Hamond against Kingsmill.
Pasc. 1649. Banc. sup.
HAmond a Iustice of peace brought an Action upon the Case against Kingsmill,* 1.1 for speaking these several words of him, viz. Mr Hamond did of his own head put into Mores confession that he stole the Lambs. And 2ly. That he was a debauched man, and is not fit to be a Iustice of Peace. Vpon not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the Plaintiff, The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that none of the words were actionable, or at least the last words are not, and so Iudgement cannot be given. For the first words he said, they ought to be taken in mitiori sensu, and they may have a good construction, viz. that he framed the confession without being helped by any other body. And for the second words that he was a debanch∣ed man they cannot touch his office at the present; Mich. 24, & 25. Eliz. C. Banc. 1. because they are spoken in the preterperfect tence, & not in the present tence. The Court said that the words, was a debauched man, are incertain words. Therefore take Iudgement for the first words, and nil capiat per billam for the second, except cause shewed to the contrary.