{ "id": 8628888, "name": "SAMUEL H. NEWBERRY v. CLEVELAND L. WILLIS", "name_abbreviation": "Newberry v. Willis", "decision_date": "1928-03-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "302", "last_page": "303", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "195 N.C. 302" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "109 N. C., 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650166 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S. E., 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S. E., 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S. E., 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S. E., 931", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660720 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0402-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 3306, "ocr_confidence": 0.457, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1801574127463901e-07, "percentile": 0.5884524541778304 }, "sha256": "085be8acb4295944a5268f5c3ae4069e3d057a6d63c903df192c78bab83f3631", "simhash": "1:b7026ca22472be51", "word_count": 568 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SAMUEL H. NEWBERRY v. CLEVELAND L. WILLIS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe 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, S. c., 140 N. C., 106, 52 S. E., 249.\nNon constat the words spoken were not true, and the jury has found, under the court\u2019s charge, that they were uttered maliciously. The third issue, therefore, may be disregarded without disturbing the judgment. Ferrell v. Siegle, ante, 102; Elmore v. R. R., 189 N. C., 658, 127 S. E., 710.\nSpeaking to the question in Byrd v. Hudson, 113 N. C., 203, 18 S. E., 209, Clark, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: \u201cIn 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, the law presumes malice, and the burden is on the defendant to show that the charge is true. (2) If it is a case of absolute privilege, no action can be maintained, even though it could be shown that the charge was both false and malicious. (3) In a case of qualified privilege, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove both the falsity of the charge and that it was made with express malice. Or to put it more succinctly, if the words are actionable per se in unprivileged\u2019 slander and libel, falsity and malice are prima facie presumed. If absolutely privileged,\u2019 falsity and malice are irrebuttably negatived, and if it is a case of 'qualified privilege,\u2019 falsity and malice must be proven.\u201d\nNo reversible error having been made to appear on the record, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "D. L. Ward, J. F. Duncan, J. Frank Wooten and D. L. Ward, Jr., for plaintiff.", "E. H. Gorham for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SAMUEL H. NEWBERRY v. CLEVELAND L. WILLIS.\n(Filed 14 March, 1928.)\n1. Libel and Slander \u2014 Qualified Privilege \u2014 Limitations Tbereon.\nQualified privilege cannot successfully be pleaded as a bar to an action for slander when the fact is established that the defamatory words were untrue and maliciously spoken.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Burden of Showing Error.\nThe burden is on the appellant to show error in the Supreme Court, and when none is made to appear the judgment rendered in the Superior Court in appellee\u2019s favor will be affirmed.\nAppeal by defendant from Hairris, J., at December Term, 1927, of Carteret.\nCivil action for slander, in that it is alleged the defendant falsely and maliciously charged the plaintiff 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 post office.\nUpon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict :\n\u201c1. Did the defendant speak of and concerning the plaintiff the words in substance alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. If so, were they true? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. If so, were they privileged? Answer: No.\n\u201c4. What compensatory damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant ? Answer: Three hundred dollars.\n\u201c5. What punitive damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: Three hundred dollars.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nD. L. Ward, J. F. Duncan, J. Frank Wooten and D. L. Ward, Jr., for plaintiff.\nE. H. Gorham for defendant." }, "file_name": "0302-01", "first_page_order": 374, "last_page_order": 375 }