Cotton v. Fisheries Products Co.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1919
• Docket Number: 292.
• Citation: 97 S.E. 712,177 N.C. 56
• Parties: COTTON v. FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

97 S.E. 712

177 N.C. 56

COTTON v. FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. ET AL.

No. 292.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 3, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Brunswick County; Stacy, Judge.

Action by J. K. Cotton against the Fisheries Products Company and others. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, the defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A slanderous charge of commission of a crime involving moral turpitude need not be made in express terms, but the significance of the utterance may be determined in view of the attendant circumstances, and the tone, gestures, and accompanying acts of the parties may at times be properly considered to determine if such words by a fair intendment and to the reasonable apprehension of listeners amount to such charge.

Rountree & Davis, of Wilmington, and C. E. Taylor, of Southport, for appellants.

J. D Bellamy & Son, of Wilmington, and Cranmer & Davis, of Southport, for appellee.

HOKE J.

The complaint, in effect, alleged that just prior to the slanderous utterance plaintiff had been the general manager of defendant company, oil and fertilizer business, and had done his duty honestly and faithfully; that, having left the employment of the company, he was in the act of having his household goods moved to the dock, with a purpose of being placed on the boat, when the bearers were stopped by direction of defendant Harry B. Therian, present manager acting under orders of his codefendant the president, the goods opened and searched, accompanied by the statement, in the hearing of divers persons, that plaintiff was suspected of having taken the property of defendant company, consisting of towels, bed sheets, etc. In the portion of the complaint more directly relevant it is alleged:

"Upon arriving at the office this plaintiff was informed by the said Mr. Herle that the defendant Harry B. Therian had phoned to him to tell the plaintiff not to remove his household goods until he, the said defendant Harry B. Therian, returned to the plant that afternoon. The plaintiff saw the defendant Harry B. Therian immediately after his return to the plant, and was publicly informed by the defendant Harry B. Therian that he, Therian, had orders from Mr. Thomas H. Hayes, president, not to allow this plaintiff to remove his household goods until they were opened and searched, as he, Mr. Hayes, suspected that this plaintiff had taken the property of the defendant corporation, consisting of towels, bed sheets, etc., which had been missed since the plaintiff left the employment of the defendant corporation.

Sixth. That, in accordance therewith, on the said premises, and after the said declaration was made in the presence of divers persons, and in a public manner, the said Therian proceeded to open the household goods, and other effects, of this plaintiff, that had been bundled and securely packed, and rummaged among the said property to see if the plaintiff had misappropriated any of the said defendants' property, and found nothing.

Seventh. That the said words and acts were plainly intended to mean and be imported and charge this plaintiff with feloniously appropriating and stealing the property of the said defendant corporation, and held this plaintiff up to the public contempt and ridicule, thereby blackening his reputation and attempting to ruin his character, from which the plaintiff has suffered very serious and heavy damages, being very greatly humiliated, shocked, and belittled by the reason of the said language and action of the said defendant, being publicly made on the said premises in the presence of divers people.

Eighth. That this plaintiff was detained on the said premises for more than a day, in consequence of the said opening of his household effects and inspection of the same, and by the use of the said language and declaration this plaintiff was willfully, deliberately, and recklessly slandered by the said language used by the said defendant therein, acting for and in behalf of said defendant corporation, by the orders of Thomas H. Hayes, president, the said slander being made without any just or probable cause, and was recklessly, willfully, and deliberately made."

There was further allegation to the effect that plaintiff had filled other positions of responsibility acceptably before being employed in this company, and was then engaged in interesting persons in an enterprise of similar character, and the charge was maliciously made with a view of humiliating plaintiff and harming him in the estimate of his business associates, etc.

Defendants demurred on the ground: (1) That there was misjoinder both of parties and causes of action; (2) that the...