Baggett v. Grady
| Decision Date | 15 March 1911 |
| Parties | BAGGETT v. GRADY et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Sampson County; Whedbee, Judge.
Action by Hiram Baggett against Henry A. Grady and others. A motion for nonsuit was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
If no objection is made to the question to a witness, or, if being made, it is overruled, it is the duty of the witness to answer it; and for his answer, when responsive to the question, he cannot be held liable in a civil suit.
The action was for damages alleged to have been caused the plaintiff by reason of certain affidavits filed by the defendants in the Supreme Court of the state affecting the moral character of the plaintiff, and protesting against the issuance to him of a license to practice law.
E. F Young and J. C. Clifford, for appellant.
Faison & Wright and Fowler & Crumpler, for appellees.
This action grows out of certain proceedings before this court which were had when plaintiff applied for license to practice law. In re License, 143 N.C. 1, 55 S.E. 635. Upon that hearing, in consequence of information received by us affecting the character of plaintiff, this court, being desirous of knowing the true facts, caused notice to be given the applicant, Hiram Baggett, and caused a citation to issue to the law firm of Grady & Graham, commanding them to appear at a date fixed in said citation and inform the court as to any facts within their knowledge concerning the moral character of said applicant. In obedience to said mandate the defendant Henry A. Grady appeared before this court and filed certain affidavits, one of which was made by himself, one by the defendant McPhail, and one by the defendant Wilson. The plaintiff, Hiram Baggett, also appeared in answer to the citation served on him, and filed affidavits in support of his character and moral standing. Certain parts of the affidavits filed by the defendants are copied in the complaint, and contain the matters alleged to have been libelous. All of said affidavits were read before the Supreme Court, while the court was considering the application of the plaintiff for a license to practice law, and this is the only publication of said charges proven or testified to upon the trial, except such mention thereof as was made in the newspapers by the reporters who attended the hearing. The plaintiff also alleges that there was a conspiracy between the several defendants to injure his character, and to prevent him from getting a license to practice law. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, on motion of counsel for the defendants, a nonsuit was granted, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harshaw v. Harshaw
... ... judicial inquiry, however false and malicious the defamatory ... statements may be. Baggett v. Grady, 154 N.C. 342, ... 70 S.E. 618; Nissen v. Cramer, 104 N.C. 574, 10 S.E ... 676, 6 L.R.A. 780; 33 Am.Jur. 145. But in this case it is ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Bailey
... ... the subject under judicial inquiry, however false and ... malicious the defamatory statements may be. Baggett v ... Grady, 154 N.C. 342, 70 S.E. 618; Nissen v. Cramer, 104 ... N.C. 574, 10 S.E. 676, 6 L.R.A. 780; 33 Am.Jur., 145." ... ... ...