Alpar v. Weyerhaeuser Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 732SC778,732SC778 |
| Citation | 20 N.C.App. 340,201 S.E.2d 503 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John ALPAR v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, INC., et al. |
Wilkinson, Vosburgh & Thompson by John A. Wilkinson, Washington, for plaintiff appellant.
Hutchins & Romanet by Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., and R. Wendell Hutchins, Plymouth, for defendant appellees.
By his first assignment of error plaintiff contends (a) that the trial court erred in failing to make the defendants elect between the defenses of privilege and nonutterance and (b) that the trial court also erred in failing to require the defendants to state, prior to the presentation of the evidence, whether they were relying upon truth as a defense or were abandoning that defense. Plaintiff in part (a) of this assignment of error does not dispute the fact that defendant can plead alternative, inconsistent defenses but rather he maintains that defendant must make an election between the two defenses prior to trial. We cannot agree with this approach. G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 8(e)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, declares in part:
If we were to accept the argument proffered by plaintiff, what possible significance would G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 8(e)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, have? Obviously, adherence to plaintiff's viewpoint would render Rule 8(e)(2) meaningless, as we would be placed in the incongruous position of saying that you can plead inconsistent defenses but you cannot prove the same.
The second segment of plaintiff's first assignment of error is bottomed upon plaintiff's contention that the uncertainty as to whether he would be confronted by the defense of truth forced him during the course of the entire trial, at great expense, to keep in court the head of the State Hospital from Madison, Indiana. Also, plaintiff claims that because of the inability to ascertain whether truth would be a defense, the trial judge allowed the evidence to wander almost endlessly in a maze. As in our discussion of the first portion of this assignment of error, we also find this argument to be without merit. This challenge requires that reference be made to G.S § 1A--1, Rule 9(i)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:
'The defendant may in his answer allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and any mitigating circumstances to reduce the amount of damages; And whether he proves the justification or not, he may give in evidence the mitigating circumstances.' (emphasis added)
Clearly, this statute does not require the defendant to reveal whether he intends to prove the defense of truth, and in fact, the latter portion of this Rule allows the defendant to plead and prove truth and/or other mitigating circumstances. For the reasons stated above this assignment of error is overruled.
Many of the 85 assignments of error discussed in the plaintiff's brief concern the admission or exclusion of evidence by the trial court. By agreement of the parties, this case was heard by the presiding judge without a jury, and 'in a trial before the judge without a jury, the ordinary rules as to the competency of evidence which are applicable in a jury trial are to some extent relaxed, since the judge with knowledge of the law is able to eliminate incompetent and immaterial testimony, but if incompetent evidence is admitted the presumption arises that it was disregarded and did not influence the judge's findings.' 7 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Trial, § 57, p. 377. Upon completion of the presentation of the evidence, the trial judge properly made findings of fact and conclusions of law. A careful review of the record does not affirmatively disclose that the trial judge's findings were influenced by the admission of any evidence which might possibly be termed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Terry
...be lost by proof of actual malice on [the] defendant's part or excessive publication by the defendant." Alpar v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 20 N.C. App. 340, 346, 201 S.E.2d 503, 508 (1974). Here, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation claim based on the "qualified privilege that applie......
-
Gohari v. Darvish
...that [Darvish] should be able to put on evidence in support of each defense that he asserted." Id. (citing Alpar v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 20 N.C.App. 340, 201 S.E.2d 503, 506, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 85, 203 S.E.2d 57 (1974)). The court concluded that Darvish was "entitled to a new trial on the ......
-
Corum v. University of North Carolina
...§ 1983 claims and his state constitutional claims, even to the extent that they seek the same remedies. See Alpar v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 20 N.C.App. 340, 344, 201 S.E.2d 503, 506, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 85, 203 S.E.2d 57 (1974); see also N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 18(a) ("A party asserting a claim......
-
Church Ekklasia Sozo, Inc. v. CVS Health Corp.
... ... asserting jurisdiction. White v. Aetna Life Ins ... Co. , No. 3:20-CV-204-MOC-DSC, 2021 WL 467210, at *2 ... (W.D. N.C. Feb. 9, 2021) ... defamatory statement or acted with actual malice in making ... the statement. Alpar v. Weyerhaeuser Co. , 20 ... N.C.App. 340, 346, 201 S.E.2d 503, 508 (1974). Plaintiffs ... ...