{
  "id": 8681547,
  "name": "DREWRY MORGAN v. W. E. SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morgan v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "37",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 37"
    }
  ],
  "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": "70 N. C. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698543
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698543
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0601-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4734,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.1614449474480424e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9118747849778115
    },
    "sha256": "42c57956cdac20c19570589af1d1b0ffdbbfaf4d8a72d53baf7e9c9baed1982a",
    "simhash": "1:efa20a6db2c0511a",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DREWRY MORGAN v. W. E. SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThe plaintiff\" requested Ills Honor to charge 'Hie jury; \u201c1. If they were satisfied from the proof that the \u2022defendant assisted Jane Baker and her sons to leave the premises of plaintiff\", by furnishing them with his wagon and liorses and going with it, it was a seduction of the two boys, \u25a0James and Henry, from his service.\u201d\n2. \u201cThat the employment of John Baker while in the service of plaintiff in virtue of the contract with his mother, was equivalent to the seduction of said John from his service.\u201d\nThe first instruction prayed for was evidently incorrect. To furnish persons with the means of leaving the premises \u2022of another, is not, without more, a, seduction from service. For .\u2022aught that appears, they may have been tenants whose terms had expired, or whose removal was otherwise lawful. Neither will the employment by one person of the servant of another, be an unlawful seduction, unless the second employer knows that the servant is in the service of the first.\nFor the last reason the second instruction prayed for was \u00a1also incorrect. Both were rightly refused.\nTo enable a plaintiff\" to recover in an action like the present, he must show that the defendant acted maliciously, not in the sense of actual ill will to the plaintiff, but in the sense \u25a0of an act done to the apparent damage of another without legal excuse. There can be no malice and no apparent damage unless defendant knows of the existence of the relation of service. Haskins v. Royster, 70 N. C. 601\nThe charge which' the Judge gave to the jury is .admitted to be unexceptionable so far as it goes. The plaintiff however in this Court excepts to it, in that, it did not go far \u2022enough, and that the Judge omitted to tell the jury that the .fact that defendant took the boys from the plaintiff's plantation \"was some evidence that he knew that they were in the .-.-service of the plaintiff. It was npt in evidence that the boys nvere at work/or \u2022plaintiff when defendant aided them -to remove, or that they ever had been, but merely that they were ..-at work on plaintiff\u2019s plantation. Whether upon this the Judge could properly have'instructed the jury as it is now said that he ought to have done, we will not inquire. At the utmost he could only have said that there was some evidence of the scienter, and that, he substantially did, by'leaving that question to the jury. In addition to this, it was the \u25a0duty of the plaintiff if he desired fuller or more specific instructions to have asked for them. It has been repeatedly held that it is not error in a Judge to omit to charge upon a point- on which he is not requested to charge. If a contrary rule should prevail, and a party could get a new trial whenever upon a critical subsequent examination of a Judge\u2019s charge he could detect some point omitted or riot fully treated^ -charges must be unnecessarily long, and even then few verdicts would stand.\nThere is no error.\nPER Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs,. Battle \u00a3 Mordeeai, for plaintiff1.",
      "Messrs. J. IP. Hinsdale and S. J. Pemberton, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DREWRY MORGAN v. W. E. SMITH.\nMaster and Servant-Seduction from Serviee--Aetion for Damages\u2014 Evidence.\n1. To furnish persons with the means of leaving the premises of another is not a 'seduction, nothing further appearing\".\n2. The employment by A of the servant of B, A being ignorant that the; servant is in the employment of B, is not an unlawful seduction.\n3. To enable the plaintiff to recover in an action for damages for enticing; a servant from his employment, he must show that the defendant acted maliciously, not in the sense of actual! ill-will to the plaintiff, but in the-sense of an act done to the apparent damage of another without lega\u00bb! excuse.\n4. On the trial of an action, if either party desires fuller or more specific instructions than the Court has given, it is his duty to ask for them. ''Haskins v. lioyster, 70 N. C. 601, cited and approved.)\nCivil ActioN for Damages tried at Spring Term, 1877, of STANLEY Superior Court, before McKoy, J.\nIt was alleged tliat James, John aud Henry Baker, (minors) were in the employment of the plaintiff by virtue of a contract with their mother, and that the defendant had seduced them from the service of the plaintiff. Issues were submitted upon the evidence, and the jury found ;\n1. That the plaintiff\" did contract for the service of said minors.\n2. They were not seduced from the service of the plaintiff\" while the plaintiff\" was entitled to their services.\n8. The plaintiff is not entitled to damages.\nThe instructions asked for by the plaintiff\" and refused by His Honor are stated by Mr. Justice Rodman in delivering; the opinion of this Court. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Appeal by plaintiff\".\nMessrs,. Battle \u00a3 Mordeeai, for plaintiff1.\nMessrs. J. IP. Hinsdale and S. J. Pemberton, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0037-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 53
}