{
  "id": 8633209,
  "name": "A. W. PERRY v. D. PENDER GROCERY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perry v. D. Pender Grocery Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "823",
  "last_page": "824",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 823"
    }
  ],
  "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": 166,
    "char_count": 1986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "sha256": "72bdcc562afacf11f4540f9a6cbc7107489b9bee004aa0a1ab70af574a836ac3",
    "simhash": "1:06440f9b71fe6081",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. W. PERRY v. D. PENDER GROCERY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nTbe defendant offered no evidence. At tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence tbe defendant made a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. Tbe court below refused tbe motion and in tbis we can see no error. Tbe numerous exceptions and assignments of error made by defendant cannot be sustained, except to tbe charge on tbe fourth issue as to punitive damages. We do not think tbe evidence sufficient to sustain that issue and as to that issue and answer it is stricken from tbe record. We see no prejudicial or reversible error on tbe other issues, and as to them there is no error.\nAs herein set forth, tbe judgment in tbe court below is\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wade H. Dickens and Geo. Q. Green for plaintiff.",
      "Wm. G. Pender and Allsbroolc & Benton for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. W. PERRY v. D. PENDER GROCERY COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 September, 1938.)\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, J., and a jury, at March, 1938, Term of Halifax.\nModified and affirmed.\nThis is an action brought by plaintiff against defendant for $3,000 damage \u201cto his good name, fame, credit and reputation,\u201d as a result of an alleged defamatory publication.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant maliciously speak of and concerning the plaintiff, in the presence and hearing of another or others, in substance the words as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Wes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, did said words by fair intendment and to the reasonable apprehension of the listeners, in view of the attendant circumstances, amount to a charge of larceny, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c3. Wbat compensatory damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant? Answer: \u2018$1,000.00.\u2019\n\u201c4. Wbat punitive damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant? Answer: \u2018$250.00.\u2019\u201d\nTbe court below rendered judgment on tbe verdict. Tbe defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nWade H. Dickens and Geo. Q. Green for plaintiff.\nWm. G. Pender and Allsbroolc & Benton for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0823-02",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 892
}