Webster v. Sharpe

• Decision Date: 14 May 1895
• Citation: 21 S.E. 912,116 N.C. 466
• Parties: WEBSTER v. SHARPE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E. 912

116 N.C. 466

WEBSTER v. SHARPE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 14, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Alamance county; Hoke, Judge.

Action by Arthur D. Webster against James P. Sharpe. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The action was brought to recover damages for defamation of character. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendant did maliciously speak of and concerning the plaintiff, in presence of plaintiff and one W. T. Webster the following words, in substance, speaking to plaintiff, to wit, "I found out who went into my store"; and plaintiff asked, "Who was it?" Defendant replied "It was you and your brother, W. T. Webster, and if you and he will give up what you took I will hush it up, and have no more to do with it"; whereby defendant maliciously intended to charge plaintiff with breaking into his store and stealing goods and money, etc. Defendant denied the allegation, and says, substantially, that, believing the said parties did enter his store, and being anxious to recover what he had lost, he did not make the statement with malice but only to give expression to an honest opinion in their presence and others that they were the parties, and if he could get back his money, etc., he would say nothing more about it, etc.; and, further, that more than six months elapsed after the alleged words were spoken and before the commencement of this suit.

Issues.

(1) Did defendant utter to Alexander Trogden, of and concerning plaintiff, slanderous words charging that plaintiff entered the store of defendant and stole money therefrom? Ans. No. (2) Were the slanderous words charged in the complaint uttered within six months before the commencement of this suit? Ans. No. (3) What amount of damages is plaintiff entitled to recover?

Case.

There was an issue as to the statute of limitations, and it was to the charge of the court on this issue that the plaintiff excepted, and takes the appeal. All the evidence tended to show that the alleged breaking was on the night of December 31, 1892, and defendant made the charge next morning to different persons, and repeated charge to various persons for a day or two, till January 3, 1893, and that there was no evidence tending to show any charge after January 3, 1893 except the evidence of witness Trogden, who testified that he was at defendant's store three or four weeks after the breaking; and in talking with defendant some one said "If you accuse the Websters of breaking into your store they would go on to you"; and defendant, Sharpe, thus replied, "Well, I have told them to their face they were the boys, and I have never accused any one else with doing it." That defendant, Sharpe, afterwards, on that same occasion, offered witness Trogden $20 to find out who did do it, and also said to witness that he did not believe much in liquor, but he thought it would be a good plan to get them drunk, and get it out of them in that way. Defendant testified that he never made charge to any one after January 3d, and that the conversation with Trogden was before that time, and not after. Plaintiff also offered in evidence the summons docket or the entries kept by the clerk in his court summons docket, purporting to give date when suit commenced. The case at bar was 820, and entry opposite, "Docketed May 30, 1894." The case just before this, being 819, was entered as docketed May 3d, and case just after, being 821, was entered as docketed June 14th. The clerk testified that he never put these summonses on his docket till they were issued, but he knows this summons was not issued the day it bears date and the day of this entry, because there was no deputy, and he himself was in Greensboro; that he supposes in making the entry he was misled by the date of the summons. The clerk stated also that he is right confident summons must have been issued before the date of the next case, June 14th, because he did not docket these cases at all till the summons was issued; that is, that it was his custom not to do so, but he could not state this positively. He states this summons was issued when bond was given, but does not know when that was. Bond is in handwriting of Mr. Long, except name of one of the sureties, which is in the handwriting of the clerk. The clerk further stated that he recollected the sheriff coming for the summons once, when bond had not been completed, and when bond was completed summons was issued by him. By issuing summons he means handing same out to sheriff to be served. The summons has entered on back, in handwriting of sheriff, "Rec'd July 10; served July 11." Sheriff Hamilton testified these entries...