Hadley v. Tinnin
| Decision Date | 17 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 341.) |
| Citation | 170 N.C. 84,86 S.E. 1017 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HADLEY. v. TINNIN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Cooke, Judge.
Action by A. M. Hadley against T. D. Tinnin. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
This is an action to recover damages, the plaintiff alleging a cause of action in slander in that the defendant charged him with the crime of false pretense, and another cause of action for malicious prosecution in procuring and prosecuting a criminal warrant, charging the defendants with false pretense. At the conclusion of the evidence his honor entered judgment of nonsuit upon the ground that there was no evidence to support the action, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
J. S. Cook, of Graham, for appellant.
E. S. Parker, Jr., and J. Dolph Long, both of Graham, for appellee.
ALLEN, J. [1] We do not understand why his honor concluded that there was no evidence to support the cause of action for slander as a witness for the plaintiff, J. C. McAdams, testified that the defendant said to him "he [Hadley] had got his mare by false pretense, " on an occasion which is not claimed to be privileged, and the defendant has not pleaded justification. The crime of false pretense is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, and to charge one with an infamous offense is actionable per se (McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C. 300), and— "in libel and slander, if the words are action: able per se, the law presumes malice, and this burden is on the defendant to show that the charge is true, unless the communication is privileged." Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N. C. 273, 13 S. E. 775.
It is true that the witness McAdams weakened the force of his evidence upon the cross-examination, but, as was said in Poe v. Telegraph Co., 160 N. C. 318, 76 S. E. 82:
"We are not at liberty to rest our opinion upon contradictions in the evidence, as the law commits to the jury the duty of determining the weight that shall be given to the evidence."
There is also evidence of express malice, as the justice of the peace, to whom the defendant applied for a warrant, testified that after the defendant had told him the facts upon which he relied, he advised him against taking out the warrant, and told him he did not think the criminal charge would hold; that they talked about the financial condition of the plaintiff, and agreed that he was not financially responsible; that the defendant told him not to have the warrant served until the Monday following; that he wished to wait and see if the plaintiff would return him the horse; that when the defendant was informed on Monday morning that the plaintiff would not return the horse, he said he would get even with the plaintiff at the courthouse if it cost him $1,000; that he then caused the warrant to be served, and afterwards withdrew it without further prosecution.
We are also of opinion that there is evidence to sustain the charge of malicious prosecution.
There is evidence that the defendant caused the warrant to be issued, charging the plaintiff with the crime of false pretense, and that the criminal charge was terminated prior to the institution of this action, as a prosecution may be terminated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Hennis Freight Lines, 240
...remainder of such testimony. Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co., supra; Casada v. Ford, 189 N.C. 744, 128 S.E. 344; Hadley v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017; Maynard v. Sears, 157 N.C. 1, 72 S.E. 609; Newby v. Edwards, 153 N.C. 110, 68 S.E. 1062; State v. Smallwood, 75 N.C. 104. Whe......
-
State v. Allen, 71
...of actual force or visible physical restraint is not essential.' See State v. Shirlen, 269 N.C. 695, 153 S.E.2d 364; Hadley v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017; Lawrence v. Buxton, 102 N.C. 129, 8 S.E. Here, defendants were stopped for the purpose of making a brief, limited, routine invest......
-
State v. Brannon
...within the custody and control of the law.'" State v. Leak, 11 N.C.App. 344, 181 S.E.2d 224, 226 (1971) (quoting Hadley v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017, 1019 (1915)). The novel question before us is identifying the initiation of the arrest process. I read our supreme court's decision i......
-
Stanback v. Stanback
...of the complainant to appear and prosecute. See Winkler v. Blowing Rock Lines, 195 N.C. 673, 143 S.E. 213 (1928); Hadley v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017 (1915); 52 Am.Jur.2d, Malicious Prosecution, § 42, pp. 210-11; Annot., 135 A.L.R. 784. Comment (g) to § 674, Restatement of the Law o......