Burns v. Williams
| Decision Date | 28 February 1883 |
| Citation | 88 N.C. 159 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | D. B. BURNS v. J. A. WILLIAMS and others. |
CIVIL ACTION for slander tried at Spring Term, 1882, of CHATHAM Superior Court, before Graves, J.
The action against the defendants is for verbal slander, and the complaint alleges two independent and separate causes of action. It sets out in detail, with the attending incidents, a conversation at the house of the plaintiff between his wife and the defendant, Oran Williams, on January 3d, 1881, the other defendants, his brother and brother's son, who had gone there with him, being present but saying nothing, the substance of which was that two hogs, belonging to the brother, Joseph Williams, had been missed, and defendant getting on the track, had traced it to that place; that thereupon an examination of the hog-pen was made by the defendants, Oran, and John A., but without discovering any of the lost property.
The complaint further avers that soon afterwards on the same day, the defendant, John A., overtook the plaintiff on the road, traveling in his wagon, and having halted him, the following conversation occurred:
The defendant inquired what the plaintiff had in his wagon, and was told it was pork. He again asked of what size, and was answered by the plaintiff that there were three shoats in a sack; the defendant remarked, if there were but one or two hogs he desired to see them; and he was then invited to make an examination and see for himself, which he declined to do; that the defendant then proceeded to say substantially as follows: Two of my father's marked stock are gone; they were seen frequently lying in the bed and were caught not far from it and tied and thrown over stakes. I saw there the track of a wagon and I followed it as it passed near the place where the stakes were, and the hogs were??put in the wagon; they were bound to be put in it and carried away, for the foot-prints of the hogs were nowhere seen leading off from the spot, and they did not have wings to fly. I then tracked the wagon, not knowing where it was going, but it appeared to be moving to the big road, and followed it to your house, where it stopped and could not be tracked any further. My father and uncle Oran and Ambrose Thomas are witnesses of these facts. I would have searched more carefully at your house, but for its confusing your wife--the hogs that I saw there were not of his stock. The plaintiff then moved on, and, the defendant following, added: You have caught further than you have a right to catch and further than I would have caught. I will go and see Robert Laster, and, being urged by plaintiff to do so, said, I reckon some of my party were there already, and if not, I will get some disinterested person to go, who could find out more than I can; if I go I am afraid of making some confusion, and will send one William B. Knight.
The conversation then ceased and the defendant rode away and the plaintiff proceeded on his journey.
The complaint then avers that by these “ acts, facts, conduct and declarations, the defendants and each of them intended falsely and maliciously to charge the plaintiff with the felonious taking and carrying away of the hogs of the defendant, Joseph Williams, and to impute to him (the plaintiff) the crime of larceny, and they were so understood “by the persons (naming them) who were present and heard and saw what was said and done.”
Answers were put in, and from the controverted allegations issues were eliminated and submitted to the jury, of which the first two involved an inquiry into the truth of the allegations concerning the two interviews and conversations described, and the third was whether the crime of larceny is charged. The other two issues related to an alleged compromise and adjustment of the matter in dispute (pending the action and not necessary to be set out) and an inquiry as to damages.
Upon the trial, after the evidence had been heard and during the progress of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casey v. Grantham
...no joint or common liability among them. Brown v. Coble, 76 N.C. 391; Logan v. Wallis, 76 N.C. 416; Street v. Tuck, 84 N.C. 605; Burns v. Williams, 88 N.C. 159; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 96 N.C. 14, 1 S.E. 648; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Angelo, 193 N.C. 576, 137 S.E. 705; Mills v. North Carolina J......
-
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...... Insurance Company, Ltd., Westchester Fire Insurance Company. and National Union Fire Insurance Company, from Williams, J.,. June Term, 1948, Vance Superior Court. . . The. plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the. destruction ... the complete termination of the controversy. Brown v. Coble, 76 N.C. 391; Logan v. Wallis, 76 N.C. 416; Street v. Tuck, 84 N.C. 605; Burns v. Williams, 88 N.C. 159. In Coulter v. Wilson,. 171 N.C. 537, 540, 88 S.E. 857, 858, Justice Hoke quotes with. approval 31 Cyc. 224, as follows: ......
-
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co
...of the controversy. Brown v. Coble, 76 N.C. 391; Logan v. Wallis, 76 N.C. 416; Street v. Tuck, 84 N. C. 605; Burns v. Williams, 88 N.C. 159. In Coulter v. Wilson, 171 N.C. 537, 540, 88 S.E. 857, 858, Justice Hoke quotes with approval 31 Cyc. 224, as follows: "A cross-action by a defendant a......
-
Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co.
...or complaint ought to state the libel in the original language. Whitaker v. Freeman, 12 N.C. 271, Fed.Cas. No. 17,527a; Burns v. Williams, 88 N.C. 159; Gudger v. Penland, 108 N.C. 593, 13 S.E. Be that as it may, the demurrer is not directed to the form of the allegations. On the question he......