Beal v. Robeson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1848
• Citation: 30 N.C. 276,8 Ired. 276
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES BEAL v. MARRIOTT ROBESON et al.

8 Ired. 276

30 N.C. 276

JAMES BEAL

v.MARRIOTT ROBESON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1848.

Where in an action for a malicious prosecution it became material to enquire, whether a party was drunk at a particular time, he may give evidence by witnesses, who have known him long and intimately, that he was not addicted to drunkenness; but he cannot give in evidence his general reputation of being a sober man.

In civil cases the general rnle is, that, unless the character of the party be put directly in issue, by the nature of the proceeding, evidence of his character is not admissible.

In an action for a malicious prosecution, in order to rebut the imputed malice, the defendant may shew, that he had consulted counsel learned in the law, upon a full and fair statement of all the facts of the case, and acted according to his advice: but it is incompetent for him to prove that he consulted with an unprofessional man and followed his advice, in order to shew that he acted bona fide and without ??alice.

The case of McRae v. Lilly, 1 Ired. Rep. 118, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Chatham County, at the Spring Term, 1848, his Honor Judge PEARSON presiding.

After the new trial granted in this case at June term, 1847, (see 7 Ire. Rep. 280) it was again tried at Chatham, on the Spring circuit of 1848, when the defendants had a verdict and judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. In the bill of exceptions it is stated, that, upon the question of probable cause, much testimony was given on both sides, but it is not set forth, for the reason that his Honor charged, that there was no probable cause for the prosecution, and no exception was taken to the charge.

To show that the defendants had acted with malice, the plaintiff contended that the defendant Robeson had not been robbed at all, that he went from Pittsborough very drunk, and on his way home fell from his horse, and hurt his head, and thereby received the injury, which he swore that the plaintiff and his associates had inflicted upon him. As to the fact whether he was drunk when he left Pittsborough, the testimony was contradictory, one witness swearing that he was very drunk, another that he was only intoxicated, and a third that he was neither drunk nor intoxicated, but had only taken a dram.

The defendant, Robeson, then offered to prove by witnesses, who had known him intimately for the last thirty years, that he was not addicted to drunkenness, and that although he would take a dram, they had never known him to be drunk, and that he bore the character of being a sober man. This testimony was objected to by the plaintiff, but was admitted by the Court.

To disprove the allegation of malice, the defendant, Robeson, offered to show by one Isaac Holt, that the witness was a Justice of the Peace in the County of Orange and had acted as such for many years; that the defendant formerly lived near him, and was in the habit, as were the other neighbours, of advising with him on legal questions; that the defendant afterwards removed to the County of Chatham, and the next day after he had received the injury complained of, the witness, who was in the neighborhood on a visit, called to see him and the defendant then stated to him the circumstances, under which he had been robbed, and the facts tending to show, that the plaintiff was one of the persons...