Newberry v. Willis

• Decision Date: 14 March 1928
• Docket Number: 181.
• Citation: 142 S.E. 10,195 N.C. 302
• Parties: NEWBERRY v. WILLIS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

142 S.E. 10

195 N.C. 302

NEWBERRY v. WILLIS.

No. 181.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 14, 1928

Appeal from Superior Court, Carteret County; Harris, Judge.

Action by Samuel H. Newberry against Cleveland L. Willis. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

In view of findings of falsity and malicious utterance, issue of qualified privilege, even though erroneously submitted, may be disregarded without disturbing judgment for plaintiff.

Civil action for slander, in that it is alleged the defendant falsely and maliciously charged the defendant with perjury while defending his administration as postmaster of Morehead City before the Carteret County Republican committee assembled for the purpose of recommending an appointee for said postoffice.

Upon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:

"(1) Did the defendant speak of and concerning the plaintiff the words in substance alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

(2) If so, were they true? Answer: No.

(3) If so, were they privileged? Answer: No.

(4) What compensatory damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant? Answer: Three hundred dollars.

(5) What punitive damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: Three hundred dollars."

Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

E. H Gorham, of Morehead City, for appellant.

D. L Ward, of Newbern, J. F. Duncan, of Beaufort, J. Frank Wooten, of Kinston, and D. L. Ward, Jr., of Newbern, for appellee.

STACY C.J.

The defendant stressfully contends that, as a matter of law, the occasion in question was a qualifiedly privileged one and that it was error to submit the third issue to the jury. Gattis v. Kilgo, 128 N.C. 402, 38 S.E. 931; Id., 140 N.C. 106, 52 S.E. 249.

Non constat the words spoken were not true, and the jury has found, under the court's charge, that they were uttered maliciously. The third issue, therefore, may be disregarded without disturbing the judgment. Ferrell v. Siegle, 195 N.C. 102, 141 S.E. 474; Elmore v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 189 N.C. 658, 127 S.E. 710.

Speaking to the question in Byrd v. Hudson, 113 N.C. 203, 18 S.E. 209, Clark, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said:

"In Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N.C. 270 , the law of slander and libel is thus summarized: (1) When the words are actionable per se, unless the matter is privileged,...