#### H. R. GARRIS v. J. K. YOUNG and YOUNG MERCANTILE COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 5 October, 1927.)

Damages — Arrest—Pleadings—Demurrer.

No cause of action is alleged in tie complaint upon allegations that defendant who was on his appearance bond to appear at court upon appeal from a misdemeanor, misinformed the plaintiff that the cost of the prosecution had been paid and he was discharged, and in consequence of this erroneous statement he had been taken on a capias and incarcerated, thereby sustaining the damages in suit.

Appeal by plaintiff from Qranmer, J., at March Term, 1927, of Pitt.

Affirmed.

8. J. Ev&rett for plaintiff.

Skinner, Cooper & Whedbee and Albion Dumb for defendant.

Per CuriaM.

The substantial allegations of the complaint are that on 1 November, 1924, the plaintiff was employed by J. K. Young, manager of the Young Mercantile Company, to advertise the company in the town of Greenville, and while so engaged he was arrested for violating an ordinance of the town. The manager then requested him to appear before the proper court and, if convicted, to appeal to the Superior Court in term. In the mayor’s court he was convicted and appealed, the defendant Young signing his appearance bond as surety. Thereafter the plaintiff inquired of Young as to the disposition of the case, and was told that the cost had been paid and that the plaintiff had been discharged, and was not required to attend the court. He alleged that he did not attend and that his absence was the result of Young’s failure to pay the cost; that he was arrested under an order of the Superior Court on account of delinquent costs and imprisoned all night and a part of the nest day, and then brought into court and held in *341custody, and tbat in consequence of tbe wrongful acts of tbe defendants be bad been damaged in tbe sum of $5,000. Tbe defendants demurred ore tenus; tbe demurrer was sustained, tbe action dismissed, and tbe plaintiff appealed.

Tbe plaintiff knew tbat be bad given a bond for bis appearance in tbe Superior Court, and be is presumed to bave known tbat in case of default be would be subject to arrest under a capias. It bas been said, “Wben a man bas a ease in court tbe best thing be can do is to attend to it; if be neglects to do so be cannot complain.” Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C., 312. Tbe plaintiff should bave observed this injunction and not relied upon tbe statement of Young under tbe circumstances alleged in tbe complaint. We bave discovered no sufficient ground upon which to base a recovery.

Affirmed.