{
  "id": 11276262,
  "name": "Catharine Watts v. John M. Greenlee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watts v. Greenlee",
  "decision_date": "1829-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "87",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 87"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 87"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 5050,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.384,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333493452170769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6294125642074113
    },
    "sha256": "350e3abc5f0b4c9a4f5fab6c1edbc3c8523f22fe62685a887c6d6c0dcd483e39",
    "simhash": "1:2a6eafa53ebe78ad",
    "word_count": 868
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Catharine Watts v. John M. Greenlee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Toomer Judge.\nThis is an action on the case for slanderous words. The Defendant pleaded \u201cnot guilty,5* and \u201cstatute of limitations.\u201d To the first plea, no replication was entered ; but according to our practice, a general replication is always understood, when there is no special replication and it is considered that issue was joined thereon.\nThe second pica, of which the foregoing memorandum was made on the docket, is, \u201c that the action was not brought within six months afttcr the words were spoken.\u201d To this latter plea there was a special replication, \u201c that the Plaintiff was, at the time the words were spoken, an infant, under the age of twenty-one years, and so continued until the bringing of the suit,\u201d and issue was taken thereon. By this replication, the fact set forth in Defendant\u2019s plea is not denied; it is thereby virtually admitted, that the cause of action did not accrue within six months before the bringing of the suit j but the Plaintiff confesses,, and avoids it by replying infancy.\nTo try these issues a Jury was empanneled, wdio found \u201c the Defendant guilty of speaking the words charged in tiic Plaintiff\u2019s declaration,' and that they were spoken before the issuing of the Plaintiff\u2019s writ, and within six months.\u201d To the second issue, the Jury did not respond, but contradicted by their verdict a fact which was confessed by the pleadings. That the words bad not been spoken within six months before the bringing of the action, was not denied by the pleadings. The Jury was empanneled to try the issue of infancy \u2014 to inquire whether the Plaintiff was an infant under the age of twenty-one years, when the words were spoken, and so continued until the bringing of the suit. To this Issue there was no response. The verdict should be set aside? and a venire facias de novo awarded.\nThe special replication to the plea of the statute of \u00cdL-mitations was not entered, until several terms had elapsed after the plea had been pleaded. A general replication was then understood to have been filed to this plea; anda special replication could riot have been subsequently entered, unless with leave of the Court, by motion to amend the pleadings. The entering of the special replication was a waiver, or abandonment of the general replication ; for the rules of pleadings forbid two replications to the same plea, except to the plea of set-off, which is in its nature a new action \u2014 a statutory substitute for a cross action. And as the Defendant may, by our Court-Jaw, \"plead as many several matters as may be necessary to his defence should he, instead of bringing a cross action, avail himself of his statutory privilege, and plead a set off, the Plaintiff would be permitted to make the same defence to the plea, as he could have made to the action. And as he could plead several matters, he must be permitted to reply several matters. (Worth v. Fentress, ante 1 v. 419.)\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Let the judgment be reversed, and a venire fadas de novo issue.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Toomer Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gaston & Badger, for the Appellant,",
      "Bevercux, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Catharine Watts v. John M. Greenlee.\nFrom Burke.\nJune, 1829.\nThe Jury should by their verdict respond to the issues joined between the parties, and they cannot negative a fact admitted by the pleadings.\n\"Where the Defendant, in an action for words, pleaded that they were spoken more than six months before the commencement of the suit, and tl\u00a1e Plaintiff replied \u201c infancy at the time of speaking the words, and bringing the suit,\u201d a verdict that the words were spo* ken within six months before the writ sued out, was held to be ill, and a venire de nono awarded.\nA Plaintiff is not permitted to reply several matters to any plea, except that of a set-off\".\nThe case of Worth v. Fentress, allowing several replications to a plea of set-off, approved by Toomsii, Judge.\nCase for slanderous words, spoken by the Defendant of the Plaintiff.\nThe writ was returnable to the Fall Term of 3 822, when a memorandum of the following pleas was entered by the Defendant, \u201cnot guilty,\u201d and \u201c the aclion was not brought within six months after the words were spoken.\u201d At March Term, 1827, the Plaintiff replied specially to the statute of limitations, that \u201c she was, at the time of speaking the words mentioned in the declaration, an infant, and continued so to the bringing of this suit.\u201d\nOn flie last Circuit, before his honor Judge Mangum, a general verdict was returned for the Plaintiff upon the plea of \u201c not guilty and upon that .of the statute of limitations, the Jury returned that \u201c the words were spoken before the issuing of the Plaintiff\u2019s writ, and within six months thereof.\u201d Upon this verdict, judgment being rendered for the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed.\nGaston & Badger, for the Appellant,\nmoved in arrest of judgment, and assigned as reasons why the motion should prevail, that the verdict was not responsive to the issue, and that it negatived a fact, which was admitted by the pleadings.\nBevercux, contra,\ncited Com. Big. Plead. 250, 251\u2014 Barnes\u2019 Notes. 461 \u2014 Porter v. Rxmimeij, 10 Mass. Rep. ^ 64 \u2014 Burper v. Baker, Oro. E. 854 \u2014 Hawks v. Crotlon, 698."
  },
  "file_name": "0087-01",
  "first_page_order": 103,
  "last_page_order": 105
}