Cotton v. Fisheries Products Co.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1921
• Docket Number: 286.
• Parties: COTTON v. FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

106 S.E. 487

181 N.C. 151

COTTON v. FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. ET AL.

No. 286.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 30, 1921

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

Civil action for slander, brought by J. K. Cotton against the Fisheries Products Company and Thomas H. Hayes and H. B Therian, president and manager, respectively, of said corporation. Upon motion duly made, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Thomas H. Hayes, and there was a verdict against the other two defendants for damages in the sum of $6,500. His honor reduced this award to $3,500 and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for said amount. The defendant corporation and H. B. Therian excepted and appealed. No error.

A charge mentioning contentions of plaintiff that he was entitled to certain special damages, but stating that no evidence had been offered to support this position, was not objectionable as calculated to create in the jurors' minds an impression that the court thought the evidence sufficient to submit the question to them.

Rountree & Carr, of Wilmington, and C. Ed. Taylor, of Southport, for appellants.

Robert W. Davis, of Southport, and John D. Bellamy & Sons, of Wilmington, for appellee.

STACY J.

This cause was before the court at a previous term and is reported in 177 N.C. 56, 97 S.E. 712. The first appeal was from a judgment overruling defendants' demurrer. This was affirmed, and the case is now before us upon exceptions noted on the trial. The material allegations, which, upon the hearing, were supported by evidence, and the principles of law arising thereon, are fully set out and considered in the former opinion of the court and need not be repeated here. ^[1] The case seems to have been tried in accordance with the opinion heretofore rendered and the same doctrine more recently announced in Vincent v. Pace, 178 N.C. 421 100 S.E. 581. The only exceptions deserving special attention are those relating to the charge on the issue of damages.

The plaintiff alleged and contended that he had suffered special damages, in that certain business negotiations, which he had on hand, were broken up as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongful acts. The court, in its charge to the jury, took occasion to mention these contentions of the plaintiff, but stated that no evidence had been offered to support this position, as there was no testimony tending to show that the matters and things complained of in this case had been brought to the attention of the parties with whom plaintiff was negotiating. Defendants excepted to this portion of the charge, on the grounds that the giving of a contention, not warranted by the evidence, was calculated to create in the minds of the jurors an impression that the court thought the evidence was sufficient to submit the question to them. We are unable to agree with this conclusion. The court's statement that the plaintiff was making a contention, unsupported by evidence, would hardly be considered hurtful or prejudicial to the defendants. This was tantamount to saying that the plaintiff's contentions, to this extent, were not well founded. The exception must be overruled.

The defendants' eighth and last exception relates to the charge on punitive damages. The basis of this assignment is that there is no evidence from which the jury would be justified in awarding such damages, and that it was therefore error to instruct them upon the subject. We think his honor properly submitted this phase of the case to the jury for their consideration. Not only did the language of defendant's employees amount to a charge of larcency, actionable per se under our law, but the accompanying acts, in causing plaintiff's goods to be opened publicly and searched in the presence of divers persons, gave such pronounced color and tone to the entire setting of the case as to warrant the jury in assessing exemplary damages. Bowden v. Bailes, 101 N.C. 612, 8 S.E. 342.

...