Dawson v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 23 September 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 456,131 N.C. 65
• Parties: DAWSON v. BAXTER et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

42 S.E. 456

131 N.C. 65

DAWSON v. BAXTER et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 23, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Pasquotank county; Jones, Judge.

Action by W. C. Dawson against W. M. Baxter and others for libel. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A publication that the chief of police and mayor, on being invited and urged to co-operate with a "citizen committee," instead of doing so, at all times seriously handicapped their efforts by their actions and manner of treatment, and that "we could have accomplished better results, and saved much time and labor, had the chief of police and the mayor recognized that they were public officers, paid as public servants, and discharged their duty in accordance with those facts," was not libelous per se, as it did not charge a breach of official duty as to the public, but only as to the committee, a mere voluntary organization.

Geo. W Ward and P. W. McMullen, for appellant.

E. F Aydlett, for appellees.

COOK J.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained by his honor. No special damage is alleged to have resulted from the publication, but it is contended to be libelous per se. The publication of which plaintiff complains is as follows, to wit: "Recognizing the fact that in this matter all agencies should work together for the accomplishment of the end in view, we immediately proposed that we should communicate with Mr. Dawson, the chief of police, and secure the benefit of his services and ability. Mr. Dawson was waited on by several members of the committee at different times, and invited and urged to co-operate with us. He positively refused to do so, and from the date of our appointment until this hour he has not--neither has the mayor of this city--done one single thing to assist us, but have at all times seriously handicapped our efforts by their actions and manner of treatment. For this reason we were badly thwarted in our efforts at the very outset." And again "We could have accomplished better results, and saved much time and labor, had the chief of police and the mayor recognized that they were public officers, paid as public servants, and discharged their duty in accordance with those facts." It was made by the defendants and one H. T. Greenleaf, who were appointed a committee of five for certain ends and purposes foreign to this complaint, and that said committee was styled and known as the "Citizens' Committee." The publication shows that plaintiff is charged with a breach of his official duty with respect to the defendants in the execution of the ends and purposes for which they were appointed, and not with respect to the public. Then what official duty did plaintiff owe to them? None is alleged in the complaint, nor does any appear upon the face of the publication. The "committee" appears to have been a volunteer organization and self-appointed. It nowhere appears that it had any legal existence, or that it owed any duty or service to the public, or that the public, through its officers, owed it any duty or service; and the court cannot assume such to be the fact. "Quod non apparet non est." We must construe the language of the publication as a whole in its ordinary and popular sense with reference to what the persons to whom it was published would reasonably suppose to have been intended (Jaggard on Torts), and not what defendants...