Barnes v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 18 November 1894
• Citation: 20 S.E. 386,115 N.C. 76
• Parties: BARNES. v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.E. 386

115 N.C. 76

BARNES.

v.CRAWFORD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 18, 1894.

Slander—Forgery—Amendment of Complaint.

1. A statement that a person is a "forger" is not slander, actionable per se, where such

word is coupled with a charge of some specific act, which of itself does not constitute forgery.

2. To sign without authority the name of a candidate for a public office, to a statement as to his future legislative action if elected, is not forgery.

3. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint after the time for answering has expired, on a demurrer thereto being sustained.

Appeal from superior court. Wake county; W. A. Hoke, Judge.

Action by W. S. Barnes against W. T. Crawford. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. J. Peele and W. A. Montgomery, for appellant.

P. H. Busbee, for appellee.

MacRAE, J. The slanderous words alleged to have been spoken by defendant are: "I did not sign the demand numbered six on the said card. My name has been forged to it by Barnes" (meaning the plaintiff) "Otho Wilson, and others got it" (meaning the card) up, and they are forgers, frauds and liars. They (meaning the plaintiff and others) have forged my name to the card." We give this sentence with the punctuation as appears in the record. It might, in some case, be necessary to send down for the original, but we do not deem it to be so here.

Without entering into a consideration of the nice distinctions which have been made as to the grade of the offense of forgery at common law and by statute, we take it that to call a man a forger, in this state, is an actionable slander. McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C. 300, and cases there cited. But if these words were so coupled with others in explanation that they must, of necessity, apply only to a further charge of some specific act, it would be necessary to pursue the inquiry as to whether the act so charged to constitute him a forger would, if true, amount to such offense. "An action of slander cannot be maintained for words which impute a crime, where, from all that was said at the time the words were spoken, it appears that the words had relation to a transaction that was not criminal, and that they must have been so understood by the hearers." Brown v. Myers, 40 Ohio St 99; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 387. To constitute actionable slander, the words must impute the commission of an infamous offense. It is true that this offense need not be punishable in this state, as was held in Shipp v. M'Craw, 3 Murph. 463. By reference to the opinion of Chief Justice Taylor in that case, it will be found that every instance cited by him was that of the charge of an infamous crime, punishable where it was alleged to have been committed. Judge Henderson said in his concurring opinion: "The gravamen In an action of slander is social degradation. The risk of punishment, and the rule to test the question whether the words be or be not actionable to wit, does the charge impute an infamous crime, is resorted to, to ascertain the fact whether it be a social degradation, and not whether the risk of punishment be incurred. And this rule is the test of that; for those who are punished for infamous crimes are degraded from their rank as citizens; they lose their privileges as freemen, their liberam legem, and are no longer boni et legales homines. No other degradation will give an action, " etc.

Is it then, an Infamous offense, under the law of North Carolina, to falsely sign the name of another to the paper known as the "Sixth Demand, " which reads as follows: "'(6) That congress issue a sufficient amount of fractional paper currency to facilitate exchange through the medium of the United States mail.' I approve of the above demand, and, if elected, will endeavor to have it enacted into a law. I also approve of the purpose of the bill introduced into the United States senate by Senator Vance, and known as the 'Subtreasury Bill'; and if it Is not shown to be unconstitutional I will vote for it, and advocate its passage, and, in the event it is shown to be unconstitutional, then I will introduce and advocate a bill to abolish bonded warehouses for whisky, &c, and also a...